Victim’s parents clear film on RG Kar rape and murder case

A film based on the alleged rape and murder of a young doctor at Kolkata’s RG Kar Medical College in August 2024 has received formal consent from the victim’s parents, nearly two months after they had publicly opposed the project.

The consent letter, signed by the parents in mid-December and accessed by HT, gives “full and unconditional consent” for the making of the film titled ‘Tillotoma’. The document, however, is dated August 15, 2025, a date the filmmaker says reflects when a copy of the consent draft was first shared with the family. The parents also confirm in writing that they have “no objections for making of this film” and authorise the producers to proceed with its execution and presentation.

When HT spoke to the victim’s father, he said the family agreed to give consent as the film was likely to be made regardless, with or without using his daughter’s name. “I just want justice for my daughter,” he said over the phone. He added that he has repeatedly tried to reach out to several cabinet ministers and the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) seeking a speedy trial, but claimed that he has not been granted a meeting.

Following public outrage and allegations of lapses in the initial probe by the Kolkata Police, the investigation was transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), where it remains pending. The victim’s father alleged that the West Bengal government and the state police had engaged in witness tampering and mishandled the investigation.

Director of Tillotoma, Ujjwal Chatterjee, told HT that the delay in receiving consent has pushed the project back by around two months. “We were waiting for clarity from the family. Now that consent is in place, we can move ahead properly,” he said. Chatterjee added veteran actors Jaya Prada and Mithun Chakraborty have been signed to play the lead roles, with Payal Chatterjee set to portray the victim. He also said the filmmakers will use the real names of those involved in the case.

However, legal experts point out that consent alone does not automatically permit public disclosure of a sexual offence victim’s identity. Advocate Eesha Bakshi, who practises in the Supreme Court of India, said Section 72 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, shaped by Supreme Court directions and drawn from Section 228A of the Indian Penal Code makes anonymity of sexual offence victims the rule.

“The statute permits disclosure of identity only in narrowly defined circumstances and never as a matter of convenience, consent alone, or public curiosity,” said Bakshi. “Where the victim is deceased, a child, or of unsound mind, the law allows the next of kin to authorise disclosure but only to a recognised welfare institution or organisation. Even this authorisation is strictly limited to the chairperson or secretary of such institution, and to no other person or entity. The media and the public at large are expressly kept outside the scope of permissible disclosure.”

“This carefully structured exception reflects the legal principle underlying both Section 228A IPC and its successor guidelines: dignity and privacy of victims are paramount and survive death or incapacity. Authorisation by the next of kin is intended solely to enable institutional welfare or support functions, not to legitimise public naming or sensational reporting,” added Bakshi.

The film is being produced by Ujjwal Chatterjee Creations, and filming will take place in New Delhi, with the director citing “political difficulties and sensitivity of the matter” in West Bengal as the reason for moving the shoot out of Kolkata.

The consent letter states that the film “will be presented by Prasar Bharati, Doordarshan”. However, Chatterjee told HT that formal confirmation from Prasar Bharati is still awaited and that discussions are ongoing. “I have total correspondence with Prasar Bharati,” he said.

Officials at Prasar Bharati did not respond to queries. Its chief executive officer Gaurav Dwivedi had told HT in October that the proposal to present the film was under evaluation.

The consent letter also states that the story is “depicted from the perspective of the victim’s mother… as a pivotal author back role.” It also records that there has been “no monetary transaction between three of us”, adding that neither the parents nor the filmmaker have exchanged any money related to the project. This was confirmed separately by the victim’s father.