The Madras High Court granted a pre-release anti-piracy injunction for Aamir Khan Productions’ film Ek Din, reinforcing anticipatory copyright protection in India.
Copyright law does not wait for infringement to occur; it acts to prevent it when the risk is imminent.
That principle comes into sharp focus in this pre-release injunction granted by the Madras High Court, highlighting how courts respond to the modern realities of digital piracy.
The case matters because it reflects the judiciary’s evolving approach to anticipatory copyright protection, especially in an era where films are vulnerable to unlawful dissemination even before or immediately upon release. The decision underscores how courts balance urgent protection of intellectual property with safeguards against overbroad enforcement.
The plaintiff, Aamir Khan Productions Pvt Ltd, approached the Court ahead of the scheduled release of its cinematographic film Ek Din on 01.05.2026. Apprehending piracy and unauthorised broadcast, it sought interim relief against a wide network of internet service providers and cable TV operators across India.
To establish its claim, the plaintiff relied on its copyright ownership, supported by the CBFC certificate identifying it as the producer. The urgency was evident – the window between release and potential piracy is often narrow, and once content is leaked, the damage is largely irreversible.
The relief sought, however, was expansive. The plaintiff effectively sought a broad injunction against multiple intermediaries to restrain any unauthorised transmission or dissemination of the film.
This raised a critical issue for the Court: how to grant effective pre-emptive protection against piracy without disproportionately impacting legitimate business operations of intermediaries.
The Court’s reasoning reflects a calibrated approach. It acknowledged the real and immediate risk of irreversible injury in cases of copyright infringement involving films, especially at the pre-release stage. At the same time, it was conscious that blanket injunctions against intermediaries could affect lawful activities and commercial interests.
The solution lay in conditional protection.
The Court granted an ad interim injunction restraining unauthorised broadcast or dissemination, but made it subject to an important safeguard—the plaintiff was required to indemnify the respondents against any potential harm arising from wrongful or excessive enforcement of the order.
This balance is crucial.
The Court did not dilute copyright protection. It strengthened it—but with accountability.
Accordingly, the injunction was granted until 22.06.2026, with notice issued to the respondents and compliance with procedural safeguards under Order XXXIX Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
What this decision illustrates is a broader shift in intellectual property enforcement.
Courts are increasingly willing to grant pre-emptive, technology-sensitive relief in piracy cases, but are equally mindful of preventing overreach, especially where intermediaries are involved.
Because in the end, protecting creativity is essential. But so is ensuring that enforcement does not outpace fairness.
Case details:
Madras High Court
Aamir Khan Productions Pvt Ltd v. Multiple ISPs & Cable Operators
This article is intended for general information purposes only. Readers should seek independent legal counsel before acting on any information provided herein. If you require any further information, you may reach out at hello@lawfluencers.com.