Madras High Court
Ramu Chellappa vs Cbfc (Central Board Of Film on 4 November, 2016
Author: N.Kirubakaran
Bench: N.Kirubakaran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 04.11.2016
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.KIRUBAKARAN
W.P.No.29379 of 2016 and
WMP.Nos.25396 and 30795 of 2016
Ramu Chellappa [ Petitioner ]
Vs
1 CBFC (Central Board of Film
Certification) Rep by its Chairman
Shastri Bhavan
Haddows Road Nungambakkam
Chennai 34.
2 RV Films
Proprietor Rajesh Vadivel
102 1st Floor Elango Nagar South
Virugambakkam Chennai 92
3 EROS International (South)
Rep by Vice President Sagar Sadhwani
Gee Gee Universal Building 2nd Floor
Mcnichols Road Chetpet
Near Metha Hospital
Chennai 31.
[Respondents]
Prayer : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the 1st respondent not to re-censor of the Tamil Movie ENGITTA MODHATHEY on the file of 2nd and 3rd respondent without knowledge of the petitioner.
For Petitioner .. Mr.G.Murugendran
For Respondents .. Ms.Sunita Kumari (R1)
Mr.Regunath Reddy for
M/s King and Patridge (R2&3)
O R D E R
The Film Director of ENGITTA MODHATHEY, has approached this Court seeking a direction not to re-censor the said Tamil movie by the 2nd and 3rd respondents, without the knowledge of the petitioner.
2. The petitioner is said to be a script writer and Director of the Movie called ENGITTA MODHATHEY, produced by the 2nd and 3rd respondents. There is an agreement called Film Director Agreement entered into between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent on 16.02.2015, giving details of the rights and liabilities of both the parties. After completion of the movie, the film was submitted for censor certificate. The 1st respondent granted U/A certificate, due to certain scenes and dialogues used in the movie. After deletion of those offending or objected portions, U certificate was given on 31.05.2016. Thereafter, the petitioner came to know that changes have been made and the duration of the movie was also reduced. According to the petitioner, without his knowledge, the film was middled with and the life span of the movie was taken away. Further, according to the petitioner, he is the script writer and also the Director and therefore, the movie could not be re-censored without his knowledge. Once the censor certificate is given by the 1st respondent, as per Rule 21 of the Cinematograph (Certification) Rules, 1983, (hereinafter referred to as the Rules), no changes could be made either by alteration or addition. In any event, the film has to be resubmitted for re-certification. That apart, according to the petitioner, the respondents 2 and 3, after making corrections and alterations in the movie, which were already censored have to submit the film for recertification and therefore, he has come before this Court seeking a writ of mandamus to direct the 1st respondent not to re-censor the movie without his knowledge as the material portion of the movie has been middled with.
3. Heard Mr.G.Murugendran, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms.Sunitha Kumari, learned counsel for the 1st respondent and Mr.Regunatha Reddy, learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3.
4. Mr.G.Murugendran, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the creator of the movie and any alteration in the scene, which was already shot would take away the spirit of the script and it will go against his creativity. Only with the consent of both the producer as well as the Director, the script was finalised and the movie was shot and thereafter U certificate was also obtained and therefore, there is no necessity for the respondents 2 and 3 to make alteration and to submit the same for recertification.
5. However, Mr.Regunatha Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 and 3 would submit that the writ petition itself is not maintainable as the dispute is between the two private parties viz., the petitioner and the 2nd respondent, as they are governed by the Agreement entered into between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent, which contains arbitration clause. Further, according to him, the disputed questions of fact cannot be gone into under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Moreover, he would submit that the petitioner is a stranger as far as the film is concerned as he has already assigned his right in entirety to the respondents 2 and 3.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent would submit that the movie was submitted for certification both by the petitioner as well as the Producer and the film was viewed by the Censor Board and a U certificate was issued under Section 22 of the Rules. If any alteration is to be made, only the particular scene is to be submitted under Rule 33 of the Rules and the entire movie need not be sent for recertification. Further, she would submit that there is no question of process called recertification.
7. This Court considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the file as well as the materials available on record.
8. As rightly pointed out by Mr.Regunatha Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents 2 and 3, the rights of the parties are governed by the Film Director Agreement dated 16.02.2015.
9. As per clause 5.5 of the agreement, which reads as follows:-
5.5 All rights of copyright, privacy, publicity and all other rights in and to the Film and any photographs, films and sound recordings made by R.V.FILMS in connection with the Film featuring the Director and all other products of the Services belong to R.V.FILMS absolutely and that R.V.FILMS shall have the right to exploit any and all of the foregoing in any and all media, platform, mode, formats including digital and, by any and all manner or means throughout the Territory in perpetuity all rights of copyright and other rights in and to the film belong to the 2nd respondent.
10. Clause 8.15 of the agreement speaks about the rights of the 2nd respondent,which is usefully extracted below:-
8.15 R.V.FILMS shall have the right to use alter adapt, change, revise, delete from, add to and/or rearrange the whole or any part of the product of the Services and to combine the same with the whole or any part of any other work to any extent that R.V.FILMS may desire and in such event the Director shall not have any claim for compensation for loss of opportunity to enhance the professional reputation of the Director or for any other reason whatever in the form of damages or at all and the decision of R.V.FILMS in respect of all matters relating to the Film shall be final and binding on the Director.
From a reading of the above clause 8.15 of the agreement, it is very clear that the 2nd respondent has got right or discretion to alter, adapt, change or revise the product.
11. At this juncture, it is relevant to extract below clause 8.13 of the agreement:-
8.13 R.V.FILMS and the Director shall at all times, be entitled to determine the final cut of the Film, on mutual agreement. In the event of disagreement between the Director and R.V.FILMS, the Director acknowledges that the veto of the creative decision rests with him.
A perusal of clause 8.13 reveals that the 2nd respondent and the petitioner shall be entitled to determine the final cut of the film on mutual agreement and in the event of disagreement between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent, the petitioner also acknowledges that the veto of the creative decision rests with him. Though clause 8.13 has given the right to the Director, the final say has been made clear in clause 8.15, wherein, the 2nd respondent has got the absolute right. Moreover, the petitioner's right in the film has already got transferred.
12. Clause 5.5 and clause 8.5 of the agreement speak about the absolute right of the 2nd respondent. Clause 8.5 of the agreement is extracted hereunder:-
8.5 Shall not during the Production period and/or at any time sell, transfer, mortgage, or create any lien, charge or encumbrance on the said Film or any material relating thereto and will not enter into any agreement in respect of the Distribution Rights, for any territory to or in favour of any party, and shall at the end of the Production Period of the said Film deliver to R.V.FILMS all material whatsoever prepared by him or in his possession in connection with the said Film free from all lien, charge or encumbrance. The Director acknowledges and confirms that the said Film and the materials thereof are the exclusive property of R.V.FILMS together with all copyrights thereunder and except for the remuneration herein he has no right, title or interest thereto.
13. In view of the aforesaid binding clauses, the petitioner cannot have any right other than stated in the agreement. The agreement, in fact, speaks only the recognition and rights of the Producer viz., the 2nd respondent. Therefore, the 2nd respondent is at liberty to make any alterations and additions. In any event, these are the issues which have to be adjudicated before the Arbitrator, in case, if the parties choose to approach the Arbitrator, invoking the arbitration clause.
14. As far as the Rule 22 of the Rules is concerned, once the film is produced for certification, it is the duty of the Censor Board to view the movie and give certification. In this case, the film was already viewed and U certificate was given. After showing the movie to the Distributors, as per the inputs given by the Distributors, the duration of the movie has been reduced so as to keep the tempo of the movie. Certain deletions are said to have been made in order to see that the interest of the viewers is maintained throughout the movie. The 2nd respondent is not a stranger and he is the producer of the movie, who has spent crores of rupees for producing the film. No doubt, the petitioner has also got a right, because of his creativity. At the same time, once he has passed on the creativity to the 2nd respondent, it is the property of the 2nd respondent and no prudent person will spoil the movie before it is released. Therefore, the points which have been highlighted by the petitioner cannot be accepted. If any additions have been made, the film has to be given to the Censor Board under Rule 33 only to view the altered portion alone. Further, a perusal of the various clauses of the agreement entered into between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent which have been extracted above, would make it very clear that the 2nd respondent has got the copy right and all rights of the movie and therefore, the petitioner cannot have any right to question the 2nd respondent. Therefore, the 2nd respondent is at liberty to follow the process as contemplated under Rule 33 of the Rules. It is needless to mention that it is always open to the parties to invoke arbitration clause as per the agreement dated 16.02.2015 entered into between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent.
With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
04.11.2016 rg Note : Issue on 7.11.2016 To CBFC (Central Board of Film Certification) Rep by its Chairman Shastri Bhavan Haddows Road Nungambakkam Chennai 34.
N.KIRUBAKARAN, J rg W.P.No.29379 of 2016 04.11.2016 http://www.judis.nic.in