Courts have refused every attempt to stop Dhurandhar 2, including a writer's and a song owner's

Dhurandhar: The Revenge, released on 19 March 2026, is the most litigated Indian film of the year. The record of those cases is more interesting than the online argument about them, because it shows who actually controls what, and because the makers have not yet lost one of the decided applications.

The first strand is the writer's claim. Santosh Kumar R.S. alleged that the film plagiarised his work. On 8 April 2026 the Bombay High Court went the other way and restrained Kumar from repeating remarks that Aditya Dhar had flagged as defamatory, until 16 April, while issuing him notice to explain them. On 16 April the same court urged Dhar and Kumar to resolve the script row between themselves. When Kumar pressed for an injunction against the film's streaming release, a Mumbai civil court refused it on 4 June 2026, holding that he had failed to show a prima facie case of similarity in script and dialogues. The legal blog IPRMENTLAW recorded further defects the court noted: the first film had released in December 2025 and the sequel had followed, yet the suit came only in May 2026; there had been no comparative analysis of the scripts or dialogues; prior proceedings before the Karnataka High Court had not been disclosed; and the OTT platform had not been made a defendant.

The second strand concerns a song, and it is the one that pits the studio against the director's own company. Trimurti Films sued B62 Studios, the production house owned by Aditya Dhar, over the use of Rang De Lal, better known as Oye Oye, from the 1989 film Tridev, composed by Anand-Milind. Bar and Bench reported the suit on 8 April 2026 and the Delhi High Court referred the dispute to mediation on 9 April. On 15 April the owner of Trimurti, having publicly called the makers of Dhurandhar 2 thieves, told the court he would not speak on the case. The mediation failed, as reported on 6 May 2026. On 14 May 2026 Justice Tushar Rao Gedela refused Trimurti an interim injunction and instead directed Super Cassettes, the label better known as T-Series, to deposit 50 lakh rupees as security. The ownership of the song has not been determined.

The third strand is the studio enforcing its character rights against an advertiser. On 5 May 2026 Justice Sharmila Deshmukh of the Bombay High Court, in Reliance Industries Ltd v. Masterchow Foods Pvt Ltd and Others, directed online intermediaries to take down an advertisement featuring a character from Dhurandhar together with a behind the scenes clip. IPRMENTLAW summarised the outcome as a recognition of character based intellectual property. It is worth stating precisely what this case is and is not: the plaintiff is Reliance, which produced the films through Jio Studios, and the reported defendant is a food company. B62 Studios, which is Dhar's company and a co-producer credited on both films, is not named as a defendant in the reporting of that suit. Where B62 appears as a defendant is in Trimurti's song case, which is a different dispute with different parties.

Taken together the four matters describe the ownership structure fairly plainly. The character belongs to the studio, which sued a third party to stop its commercial use. The music rights sit with a label and a claimed prior owner who are fighting each other, with the director's company as a defendant. The screenplay claim was tested on the papers and failed at the interim stage, and the claimant was separately restrained from repeating his allegation in public. Bar and Bench's index of its own Dhurandhar coverage also lists several other unsuccessful attempts to interfere with the film, including a Madras High Court refusal on 17 April 2026 to stall it because a small section of society objected, a dismissal on 10 April of a plea to stop screenings during the Tamil Nadu polls, and a Delhi High Court direction on 20 May asking the Centre to examine an allegation that the film disclosed operational details of the armed forces.

None of this is a final ruling on the merits. The refusal of an interim injunction is not a finding that Santosh Kumar's script claim is false, only that he did not show enough to justify stopping a release. The 50 lakh rupee deposit ordered from Super Cassettes exists precisely because the court has not decided who owns Rang De Lal. What the Centre said in response to the armed forces allegation, and whether any of the four suits will proceed to a full trial, is not yet on the public record.