Bollywood is often talked about in terms of star fees, marketing budgets, and box office returns. But there’s another line item quietly growing into a serious, boardroom-level expense: legal professional charges. Once you look at the numbers, it becomes clear that legal is no longer a small backend cost. It's a major, recurring expense that can run into tens of crores every year for the biggest studios.
Consider what three major production houses alone have spent over the last five financial years.
Dharma Productions reported legal professional charges of Rs. 5.40 crore in FY 20-21, Rs. 2.57 crore in FY 21-22, Rs. 2.80 crore in FY 22-23, Rs. 2.95 crore in FY 23-24, and then a sharp jump to Rs. 17.19 crore in FY 24-25. Yash Raj Films (YRF), on the other hand, shows a consistently high legal bill that has grown over time: Rs. 13.72 crore in FY 20-21, Rs. 15.53 crore in FY 21-22, Rs. 24.45 crore in FY 22-23, Rs. 40.63 crore in FY 23-24, and Rs. 40.40 crore in FY 24-25. Maddock Films sits on a steadier, lower band but still spends at a level that would surprise many readers: Rs. 2.20 crore in FY 20-21, Rs. 3.30 crore in FY 21-22, Rs. 3.98 crore in FY 22-23, Rs. 3.69 crore in FY 23-24, and Rs. 3.24 crore in FY 24-25. Put together, these three production houses alone add up to Rs. 182.05 crore in legal professional charges across five years. Even more striking is the trajectory: the combined spend rises from Rs. 21.32 crore in FY 20-21 to Rs. 60.83 crore in FY 24-25, which is nearly three times in just five years. In FY 24-25 alone, the combined legal bill of these three banners is Rs. 60.83 crore, and YRF accounts for roughly two-thirds of that number by itself.
So what exactly are production houses paying legal professional charges for?
The simplest way to understand it is this: legal is the “permission, protection and payments” layer that makes modern entertainment possible. Every film begins with rights, whether it's an original script acquisition, a book adaptation, life rights, remake rights, or underlying IP that needs to be secured. This stage isn’t glamorous, but it is foundational. If the chain of title isn’t clean, the risk of a claim later can become a release-stopping nightmare. From there, legal work expands into the contracts that keep production functioning. Talent agreements for actors, directors, and writers, deal memos, crew contracts, vendor agreements for studios, equipment, VFX, and post-production, location permissions, releases, and a long list of production-facing documents are all part of routine legal support.
The next layer is where the biggest money typically sits: monetisation and exploitation deals.
Theatrical distribution terms, domestic and overseas arrangements, satellite licensing, OTT deals, music rights, dubbing and subtitling arrangements, brand integrations, and merchandising deals—each one is negotiated, documented, and structured to avoid future disputes. In today’s market, a single film can have multiple revenue windows, and each window has its own contract architecture. That alone can keep legal teams busy for months, especially when negotiations are complex or involve multiple partners.
Then comes the pressure-cooker phase: release and reputation protection.
Theatrical releases require careful navigation of certification and compliance. Major titles also face risks that can erupt close to release—objections, notices, claims, and threats of injunctions. This is where legal spend can spike because the work becomes urgent, high-stakes, and time-bound. Finally, there’s the category that can change the number overnight: disputes. Copyright and plagiarism claims, title disputes, defamation and privacy issues, arbitration over termination, payments, credits, or revenue shares, and anti-piracy actions often demand intensive legal time and external counsel involvement. A banner may have a normal legal bill in one year and a drastically higher bill in another simply because one or two disputes escalated.
That is what makes legal professional charges so unpredictable compared to other costs.
Marketing can be planned. Production costs can be budgeted. Legal spend behaves more like a risk meter: it reflects how deal-heavy a company’s slate is, how complex its licensing structure has become, and whether it has been pulled into litigation or pre-release firefighting. This is also why the patterns differ across production houses. YRF’s numbers suggest a consistently large legal engine, which makes sense for a studio with big-scale releases, extensive rights exploitation, and an ecosystem of ongoing contracts. Maddock’s spend appears steady, suggesting a controlled, repeatable operating structure. Dharma’s FY 24-25 spike is the kind of data point that instantly triggers curiosity because it indicates either a significantly heavier year of deal-making, disputes, or both, compared to the previous few years.
The larger point is this: if just three production houses are spending over Rs. 60 crore in legal professional charges in a single year, the industry’s total legal bill is clearly far bigger.
Add other studios and independent banners, plus the legal needs of music labels, distributors, exhibitors, and platforms, and it’s easy to see how legal services have become one of Bollywood’s most important invisible industries. As content becomes more global, more multi-window, more IP-driven, and more litigation-prone, legal is no longer a footnote in the budget. It’s a core operating cost—and for top studios, it can quietly rival the size of many mid-level film budgets.
