“Sometimes you have to forsake accuracy, but you must never forsake truth.”

That’s how Peter Morgan defended the expansive creative liberties taken in The Crown, the acclaimed Netflix series that he created and scripted. The show tells the story of the British royal family through the reign of Queen Elizabeth II.

Though the show’s creators have clearly said that The Crown is a “fictional dramatisation … inspired by real events”, it has been criticised for inaccuracy. One critic derided it as “fake history”.

The debate about how much creative liberty the creators of dramatised works based on real events can take played out in India this week, as a controversy broke out about actor-director Kangana Ranaut’s biopic Emergency about Indira Gandhi.

Veteran journalist Coomi Kapoor alleged that distortions and misrepresentations in the film are being blamed on her 2015 book, The Emergency: A Personal History, for which she had signed adaptation rights with Ranaut’s Manikarnika Films Private Limited.

Kapoor told The Telegraph that the facts about Indira Gandhi’s life are in the public domain. “Don’t cite the book and present wrong facts,” she said.

Kapoor has sued Manikarnika Films and Netflix for defamation and breach of contract.

Responding to the legal notices, Manikarnika Films on April 10 said that the film was based not just Kapoor’s book but on other material too. It said that the agreement explicitly allowed for creative liberties “to make necessary modifications to the subject story and screenplay”, reported The Telegraph. The company also said Kapoor had given them “absolute and complete intellectual property rights”.

The case raises questions about the legal rights of authors of non-fiction works when their work is adapted for the screen and how far creative liberty can be taken.

Signing a contract for the rights of a non-fiction book does give a filmmaker creative licence – but not to the extent that the screen adaptation is untrue to the source material, said lawyers and an editor at a publishing house.

“Authors have a right against distortion or mutilation of their work if it affects their honour or reputation,” said Nikhil Narendran, a technology and media lawyer and partner at the law firm Trilegal.

It is also important to differentiate between dramatisation and completely distorting or twisting of facts, he said. “A misrepresentation of a fact from a non-fiction work is arguably a distortion,” said Narendran. “Especially when a movie claims that it is made on a non-fiction book, but distorts facts represented in that book.”

Signing away rights

Priya Kapoor, editorial director at Roli Books, said that contracts involving screen adaptations can only go so far in protecting the author and their work – unless specific protective clauses are negotiated into the agreement.

To protect the reputation of the book, Kapoor said the filmmaker or serial maker is usually asked to add a disclaimer stating that the work is “based loosely” on a book and that the author or publisher is not liable for creative liberties that have been taken.

Lawyer Dushyant Arora said adaptation contracts are fiercely and closely negotiated. “Some of these contracts not only reserve some sort of a greenlight as far as the script is concerned, sometimes they also reserve rights as far as the casting is concerned,” he said.

Coomi Kapoor had signed a tripartite contract with her publisher, Penguin Random House, and Manikarnika Films, according to The Print. The agreement granted the producers “full artistic licence” but without modifying anything “not in consonance with historical facts”. It also added that the author’s name and book were not to be used to promote the film without her approval.

Legal cover

Sometimes, filmmakers buy the rights to a non-fiction book to use it as a legal shield if a social or political group takes exception to something shown on screen.

More important, basing a show or film on a book adds credibility, even if material about the subject is widely available.

“They need a solid IP [intellectual property], like a book, to underline their entire storymaking,” said Priya Kapoor. Streaming platforms want this too, she said.

“They’re saying, where is the research coming from, where are these facts coming from?” she added. “You can’t just put it out there. Put out a book behind it – and pay for it.”

But this strategy comes with limitations. “...When you claim that your movie is based on a book, you can’t deviate from basic facts presented there, or else you will face claims of mutilations and distortion,” Narendran said.

That’s what Coomi Kapoor complained about to The Print. She noted that Ranaut’s biopic prominently credited her book as the source. “In order to give credibility to their work, they used my name,” she said.

Journalist Sunetra Choudhury, one of the co-authors of Black Warrant, which was published by Lotus Roli Books and turned into a Netflix series, said that she could have asked for riders while selling adaptation rights but the agreement was based on trust as well as familiarity with director Vikram Aditya Motwane’s work.

“They had a special screening for us and we were very happy with what they’d done because it was very nuanced,” she said.

The limits of creative liberty

One of the contentious features of Peter Morgan’s approach of blending fact with fiction in The Crown is how he imagines dialogue between characters. Josh O’Connor, who plays Prince William in two seasons, told the BBC that Morgan takes historical facts, or moments in history viewers either remember or have seen footage of, and “paints in-between those punctuation moments”.

Dramatisation is key to making a film or television adaptation of real-life events engaging and entertaining. That is part of the creative licence that filmmakers seek when buying rights to a book, said Narendran.

Choudhury said she was pleased that the web series of Black Warrant was true to the book. “...Of course they had to make dialogue and that dialogue is obviously creative liberty but it has the same spirit,” she said.

Arora said that in the end, the makers of dramatised series and films based on real events owe their subjects the truth “because you are profiting off their stories”.

He explained: “It is some sort of an act of documentation.”

The Emergency is as much about the excesses of a power-hungry prime minister as it is about powerless citizens whose liberties were abused and whose lives were crushed by the state, he said.

“I think that especially when you’re telling stories about power, democracy and the marginalised, you ought to stay as close to the truth,” he said.

Here is a summary of the week’s top stories.

Pahalgam and its aftermath. India and Pakistan fired tit for tat diplomatic salvoes following the terror attack in Jammu and Kashmir’s Pahalgam on Tuesday. Twenty-six persons were killed and 17 others were injured in the attack that took place in Anantnag district’s Baisaran area. Militants fired at tourists, most of whom were from outside the state.

The terrorists targeted tourists after asking their names to ascertain their religion, the police said. All but three of the dead were Hindu.

India suspended visa services for Pakistani citizens and said all valid visas would be revoked from April 27, except medical visas, which would remain valid until April 29. Pakistani citizens in India under the SAARC visa scheme were given 48 hours to leave. India’s Ministry of External Affairs also advised its citizens against travelling to Pakistan and urged those already there to return.

India declared Pakistan’s defence, military, naval and air advisers in New Delhi persona non grata and said it would withdraw its defence advisers from Islamabad.

India also suspended the 1960 Indus Waters Treaty on sharing water from the Indus and its tributaries. Pakistan said this was an “act of war” and warned that it would respond with “full force across the complete spectrum of national power”. It also said it would suspend the 1972 Simla Agreement signed with India in the aftermath of the 1971 war. Among other features, the agreement resulted in the recognition of the Line of Control that serves as the de facto boundary between the countries in much of Jammu and Kashmir.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi said that the punishment meted out by India for the attack will be “bigger than what the terrorists imagine”.

Safwat Zargar writes about why the buck stops with the Modi government over the Pahalgam terror attack and Umar Sofi explains why Baisaran was the ideal spot to try to derail J&K’s journey to peace.

The contentious waqf amendment. The Union government told the Supreme Court that the Waqf Amendment Act does not violate constitutional rights. In an affidavit submitted on Friday, the government argued that the law regulates only secular aspects of waqf property management and steers clear of religious freedoms governed by Article 25 and Article 26 of the Constitution.

The amendments, it said, were based on an “in-depth and analytical study” and aimed at reforming administrative procedures. It also defended the inclusion of non-Muslims on waqf boards, saying these were secular bodies with advisory roles.

The government said over 20 lakh hectares had been recorded as waqf land after 2013, alleging misuse of earlier provisions to encroach on private and public land. It opposed a “blanket stay” on the law and said that legal challenges to it were based on the “false premise” that it impinged on religious freedoms. The government assured the court it would not denotify waqf properties or appoint new council members before May 5, when the matter will be heard next.

Danish Khan writes about the history of the Bohra community’s resistance to the waqf law.

Court criticises Ramdev. Patanjali Ayurved founder Ramdev was ordered by the Delhi High Court to remove an advertisement in which he claimed that popular drink Rooh Afza was being used for “sharbat jihad”. The court said that the comment by the yoga guru was “indefensible”.

Food company Hamdard, which makes the drink, had moved the court seeking the removal of a video.

While advertising for a Patanjali product on April 3, Ramdev, without naming Hamdard, claimed that proceeds from its sale were used to construct mosques. He described this as “sharbat jihad”.

While Ramdev defended his remark, arguing that he had not named any company, Justice Amit Bansal said that the comment “shocks the conscience of court”. The court also directed Ramdev to file an affidavit that he would not repeat such statements.

Tabassum Barnagarwala writes about the history of Patanjali’s dangerous claims.

Also on Scroll this week

Follow the Scroll channel on WhatsApp for a curated selection of the news that matters throughout the day, and a round-up of major developments in India and around the world every evening. What you won’t get: spam.

And, if you haven’t already, sign up for our Daily Brief newsletter.