Vishal Bharadwaj Breaks Silence on O’Romeo Legal Rights Controversy: “Didn’t Think I Needed Permission”
Mumbai: Filmmaker Vishal Bharadwaj has finally broken his silence on the legal controversy surrounding his upcoming film O’Romeo, firmly stating that he did not believe he needed permission to tell the story. The director’s remarks come after objections were raised over the film’s alleged resemblance to real-life individuals, sparking debate around creative freedom, adaptation rights, and ethical boundaries in cinema.
O’Romeo, slated for release in 2026, is one of the most anticipated films of the year, featuring a powerful ensemble cast and promising Bharadwaj’s trademark dark, layered storytelling. However, soon after the release of its promotional material, the film landed in controversy when a family member of a real-life figure believed to have inspired the narrative reportedly issued a legal notice, alleging unauthorised use of personal history and misrepresentation.
Addressing the issue publicly for the first time, Bharadwaj clarified that O’Romeo is not an authorised biographical film. Instead, it is a cinematic adaptation of a published literary work, for which the filmmakers had legally acquired rights. According to the director, once the rights to adapt the book were secured, he did not consider it necessary to seek additional permission from individuals or families who may see similarities between the film and real-life events.
“I didn’t think I needed permission,” Bharadwaj stated candidly, explaining that the story is rooted in a broader social and historical context rather than a direct retelling of one person’s life. He emphasised that the characters and situations in the film are fictionalised interpretations, created to serve the narrative and cinematic intent, rather than precise representations of real people.
The director also pointed out that creative adaptations often involve blending facts with imagination, especially when stories are inspired by documented material already in the public domain. In his view, responsibility for permissions, if any, lies with the original author of the source material and not necessarily with filmmakers who adapt it for the screen after legally acquiring the rights.
The controversy has reignited a familiar debate in the Indian film industry — where should the line be drawn between artistic liberty and personal sensitivity? While filmmakers argue that creative expression must remain free to explore real-world inspirations, families of those portrayed often feel aggrieved if they believe the depiction affects personal legacy or public perception.
Vishal Bharadwaj maintained that O’Romeo does not aim to glorify or defame any individual. Instead, it seeks to explore the emotional and social undercurrents of a particular era and environment. He reiterated that the film’s disclaimer clearly states that it is a work of fiction inspired by certain events, not a documentary or factual account.
Industry observers note that such disputes have become increasingly common as filmmakers mine real-life stories for compelling narratives. While copyright law typically protects adaptations of published works, the emotional and reputational concerns of families often lead to legal challenges, even when filmmakers believe they are on solid legal ground.
Despite the controversy, Vishal Bharadwaj remains focused on the film’s release and creative journey. Those close to the project suggest that the team is confident about its legal position and hopes the issue will be resolved through dialogue rather than prolonged litigation. The director also expressed respect for differing viewpoints, while standing by his belief that O’Romeo was made responsibly and within legal boundaries.
As the film inches closer to its release date, attention is likely to remain fixed not just on its performances and storytelling, but also on how the controversy unfolds. Whether the matter escalates legally or is settled amicably, Bharadwaj’s statement has made one thing clear — O’Romeo represents his creative interpretation, and he sees no requirement for additional permissions beyond the rights already obtained.
The episode once again highlights the complex intersection of law, art, and personal legacy in contemporary cinema — a space where stories inspired by reality continue to provoke both admiration and debate.
