02-05-2025
Ex-Goa CM Alemao's plea to stop release of film starring Nawazuddin rejected by Bombay HC
The High Court of Bombay at Goa has dismissed an appeal by former Goa chief minister Churchill Alemao for an injunction to restrain the release of the film 'Costao'. The 'biographical' film – which released Thursday on an OTT service, stars actor Nawazuddin Siddiqui and is based on the life of a retired customs officer Costao Fernandes, who was posted in Goa in the 1990s.
Churchill had filed a civil defamation suit before the Civil Judge Senior Division at Margao last year seeking an order of temporary injunction to restrain the production companies and director of the film from carrying on any further production of the movie and from releasing it in theatres or OTT platform or any other source in India or abroad. The veteran politician sought Rs 100 crore in damages or compensation claiming that the film was 'solely based on the narrative given by Costao Fernandes, in complete ignorance of various judicial proceedings that were initiated in respect of the incident, and which are contained in various judgments of this Court and of the Supreme Court'.
In 1991, Costao Fernandes, an intelligence officer attached to the Customs House at Mormugao in South Goa, claimed to have received credible information that the Alemao brothers and their associates were planning to smuggle gold into the country. Fernandes had chased and intercepted a car allegedly driven by Churchill's brother Alvernaz and in the ensuing scuffle and knife-fight, Alvernaz was grievously hurt and later succumbed to his injuries.
In the petition, Churchill, representing the entire Alemao family consisting of his brothers – Joaquim, the late Alvernaz and the late Ciabro and their spouses and children – said the movie, if allowed to be produced and released, would portray him and his family as a 'villain' and would allow the producers to make commercial gain at the cost of his reputation and political career and of his family members.
His counsel submitted 'that the incident being well-known, in the absence of also including the findings exonerating the plaintiff [Churchill] of the customs and criminal case, the public would carry an impression that the plaintiff and his family were smugglers'.
In their reply, the respondents said that the movie does not purport to be a true story and is a fictional account in which the real-life incident 'may have inspired the film'. The respondents said that the film is merely a narrative based on Costao's version of events, 'with creative liberties of fictionalization and dramatization.'
The lower court had rejected the application for temporary injunction, observing that the plaintiff sought an order of restraint on the assumption that the film would be defamatory of the plaintiff and of his deceased brother.
View this post on Instagram
A post shared by ZEE5 (@zee5)
In an order Wednesday – a day before the movie was released — the HC bench of Justice Valmiki Menezes, said the findings of the trial court do not call for any interference in appeal. The High Court said 'the plaintiff has not made out any prima facie case and spelt out in what manner his reputation has been affected, based upon news articles which are, not proved to be at the behest and on information given by the defendants. The film is yet to be released and the plaintiff is basing his claim on a conjecture that the film would contain defamatory material.'
'…At least at this stage, before the release of the film, the defendants have set out a case that the film is a work of fiction, dramatizing an incident which is described in records of various courts. The defendants also claim that the film is based on inspiration derived from the facts stated in court records and from the version of the incident stated by Costao. The claim is that the film is a work purely of fiction and dramatizing the incident to give it a certain entertainment value for viewers. There are enough of safeguards also placed in the form of a disclaimer. Nothing is shown on record to draw any likeness of any character in the film, which is not yet released, or for the plaintiff to believe from any material that the character has a likeness similar to the plaintiff or any members of his family,' the court said.
