Delhi court’s pre-release injunction for Jolly LLB 3 marks proactive step to curb film piracy

Experts said the order represents a significant evolution from traditional anti-piracy measures because it allows copyright holders to get new websites blocked in real time without repeatedly having to return to court. While the eventual impact would hinge on implementation, it could help studios combat the multi-headed nature of piracy where new mirror sites often emerge as soon as old ones are blocked.

Video piracy remains rampant in India, costing the industry ₹22,400 crore annually, according to a report by EY and the Internet and Mobile Association of India. Of this, ₹13,700 crore in losses stem from pirated movie theatre content while ₹8,700 crore is attributed to illegally accessed OTT (over-the-top) content.

“The pre-release injunction marks a significant step in enforcement of a preventive remedy where the interested party has secured protection of its intellectual property in advance before an actual infringement,” said Gaurav Sahay, founding partner of Arthashastra Legal. “The direction to the internet service providers, domain registrars and governmental authorities to block rogue websites known for piracy is a crucial attempt to restrict attempts for unauthorized circulation and preserve both the film’s commercial value and rights.”

This is different from seeking piracy injunctions aimed at mitigating damage that has already begun—the injunction here is preventive, Sahay added. By securing judicial backing and involving ISPs and government authorities, the order increases compliance pressure and strengthens the likelihood of early deterrence.

Yusuf Shaikh, founder and chief executive officer (CEO) of Janta Cinema, a low-cost theatre chain, referred to piracy as a significant threat to movie industry revenue, with new films surfacing on unauthorized apps within a few hours of release.

Proactive enforcement

A “dynamic injunction” represents a significant evolution from traditional anti-piracy measures like “John Doe” orders, agreed Anupam Shukla, a partner at Pioneer Legal.

Legal experts emphasized that the courts have previously granted similar injunctions to protect sports broadcasts and content from international studios Warner Bros., Netflix, and Disney from piracy.

“Legally, it broadens the interpretation of interim relief under the Copyright Act and the IT Act, setting a precedent for proactive rather than reactive enforcement,” said Essenese Obhan, managing partner, Obhan & Associates. “While this is the first instance of such an order for a Bollywood release, similar mechanisms—often called ‘dynamic injunctions’—are well-established in jurisdictions like the UK, the US and Singapore, particularly for high-value films and live sports broadcasts.”

Standard pre-release security measures such as encryption, watermarking and secure-screening rooms are preventive: they make leakage difficult but do not create an independent legal right to prosecute the leaker for contempt of court, according to experts.

Once (or before) a film is released, any reproduction, or leak is not merely an infringement offence but a continuing contempt of court punishable with imprisonment, said Aishwarya Kaushiq, a partner with the disputes team at BTG Advaya.

However, the effectiveness of such an order hinges on identifying the leaker. Most pre-release leaks today occur on Telegram channels that hide behind virtual private networks and encrypted group-chat invites. Impleadment of, and orders against, service providers of unidentifiable leakers become crucial. These service providers include VPN operators, messaging platforms, social media intermediaries and email service providers.

Agreeing that this order is significant as it extends the scope of anti-piracy protection to pre-release leaks, plugging the window where pirated copies often first appear, Tanu Banerjee, a partner at Khaitan & Co., pointed out that piracy networks constantly adapt, so injunctions are a deterrent but not a complete solution.

“Implementation will always be a significant hurdle. An unauthorized website, once taken down, can effectively be up and functioning under a different domain name in a matter of hours. As such, effectively combating illegal broadcasting of content must be a continuous and ever-evolving effort,” said Niharika Karanjawala-Misra, principal associate at Karanjawala & Co.