Sayani Gupta has received relief in the copyright dispute surrounding her directorial debut Aasmani. The Screenwriters Association’s Dispute Settlement Committee (DSC) has concluded its proceedings after finding that the two works at the centre of the complaint shared an underlying idea but differed in their storytelling, characters, conflict and overall narrative.
The dispute began after filmmaker Vinia Negi reportedly accused Gupta of copyright infringement and breach of trust. Negi alleged that Aasmani bore similarities to her unfinished documentary project Prabha, particularly because both stories involved an elderly woman and a vintage car.
The Screenwriters Association’s DSC has now closed the complaint following its review of submissions and comparisons of the two works.
DSC Finds Differences Between the Two Works
According to a press statement issued on Sunday, the DSC reviewed material submitted by the parties and also considered independent expert comparisons.
The committee reportedly concluded that Aasmani and Prabha shared only an underlying idea. It found differences in key creative elements, including storytelling, character development, conflict and the story arc.
The DSC also highlighted an important principle of copyright law: copyright protects the expression of an idea rather than the idea itself.
The committee noted that this distinction was particularly relevant because Negi’s project was a documentary based on the publicly known life of a real person.
Sayani Gupta Calls the Decision a Relief
Following the development, Gupta reacted to the outcome and said she had faith that the truth would eventually prevail.
“As I had said earlier, truth will always prevail. I had respected the process and am grateful that the truth has come out. It always does,” Gupta said.
The actress described the dispute as an extremely difficult period in her life.
“This has been the most harrowing experience of my life,” she added.
Gupta also quoted a line from Rabindranath Tagore that her grandmother used to recite:
“Tomar potaka jaare dao, bohibare dao shokoti.”
She explained the quote in the context of finding the strength to carry a responsibility entrusted to you.
Separate Defamation Case Also Mentioned
The DSC’s statement also referred to a separate defamation case filed by Gupta against Negi.
According to the information reported by Bollywood Hungama, Gupta’s legal proceedings overlap with issues raised in the SWA complaint. The court has reportedly passed an order favourable to Gupta in the defamation matter.
Because those issues are now sub judice, the DSC said it could not continue adjudicating the overlapping dispute.
The proceedings have therefore been concluded and the complaint closed at the Screenwriters Association’s end, without prejudice to the legal rights and remedies available to either party.
Complaint Was Filed in April 2026
According to the report, Gupta’s plea stated that Negi approached the Screenwriters Association with her complaint in April 2026.
Gupta’s lawsuit also reportedly alleged that, while the SWA proceedings were ongoing, Negi circulated a “Statement of Support” through WhatsApp and social media seeking backing from people in the film industry.
The plea claimed that the campaign attracted more than 250 signatures.
These claims form part of Gupta’s legal case and should not be treated as independently established facts unless confirmed by the relevant court records.
Aasmani Festival Screening Was Also Affected
Gupta reportedly argued that the controversy had caused professional repercussions for her directorial debut.
Among the consequences cited in her plea was the withdrawal of Aasmani from the Indian Film Festival of New Zealand (TIFFNZ).
The dispute therefore extended beyond the copyright complaint itself, affecting the film’s festival journey and, according to Gupta’s case, her professional reputation.
Sayani Gupta Seeks ₹9 Crore in Damages
The legal dispute is not necessarily over for Gupta and Negi.
Gupta has reportedly sought ₹9 crore in damages from Negi. She has also demanded an unconditional apology and a public retraction.
The SWA DSC’s closure of its proceedings does not by itself determine the outcome of the separate legal claims between the two parties. Those proceedings remain subject to the relevant court process.
