IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MRS.MANJULA CHELLUR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH DECEMBER 2011 / 16TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WA.No. 1855 of 2011() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.32237/2011 Dated 03/12/2011 .................... APPELLANT / PETITIONER : -------------------------------------- P.A. RASHEED, FILM PRODUCER, KULTHAR CREATIONS, V.K. COMPLEX, FORT ROAD, KANNUR, PIN 670001 BY ADV. MR. ABRAHAM VAKKANAL, SENIOR ADVOCATE MR. PAUL ABRAHAM VAKKANAL MR. DIJO SEBASTIAN MS. VINEETHA SUSAN THOMAS MS. JASMY KATTOOR RESPONDENTS : --------------------- 1. KERALA STATE CHALACHITRA ACADEMY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, SASTHAMANGALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN 695010 2. SHRI. PRIYADARSHAN, CHAIRMAN, KERALA STATE CHALACHITRA ACADEMY, SASTHAMANGALAM, THIRUVANATHAPURAM, PIN 695010 3. SHRI. K.B. GANESHKUMAR, HON'BLE MINISTER FOR FOREST, CINEMA AND SPORTS, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN 695 001 4. SHRI. K.K. KUNHIKRISHNAN, CHAIRMAN, PREVIEW COMMITTEE (SELECTION COMMITTEE) FOR COMPETITION SECTION, 16TH INTERNATIONAL FILM FESTIVAL OF KERALA, RESIDING AT 169 E, LAKSHMI, SILVERLINE, T.P. NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN 695001 W.A. NO. 1855 OF 2011 :2: 5. DR. DOMINIC J. KATTOOR, MEMBER, PREVIEW COMMITTEE (SELECTION COMMITTEE) FOR COMPETITION SECTION, 16TH INTERNATIONAL FILM FESTIVAL OF KERALA, CHALACHITRA ACADEMY, SASTHAMANGALM, THIRUVANATHAPURAM, PIN 695010 6. MR. SHAJIYEM, MEMBER, PREVIEW COMMITTEE (SELECTION COMMITTEE) FOR COMPETITION SECTION, 16TH INTERNATIONAL FILM FESTIVAL OF KERALA, CHALACHITRA ACADEMY, SASTHAMANGALAM, THIRUVANATHAPURAM PIN 695010 7. RENU RAMANATHAN, MEMBER, PREVIEW COMMITTEE (SELECTION COMMITTEE) FOR COMPETITION SECTION, 16TH INTERNATIONAL FILM FESTIVAL OF KERALA, CHALACHITRA ACADEMY, SASTHAMANGALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN 695 010. R1 ADV. MR. ASHOK M. CHERIYAN, STANDING COUNSEL THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: MANJULA CHELLUR, Ag. C.J. & P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.A. No. 1855 OF 2011 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 7th day of December, 2011 JUDGMENT Manjula Chellur, Ag.C.J. Heard the learned senior counsel Mr. Abraham Vakkanal appearing for the appellant and so also the learned standing counsel for the first respondent/Kerala State Chalachithra Academy (KSCA) Mr. Asok M. Cherian. 2. Admittedly, the appellant is a debut producer of a feature film called “Aadhimadhyantham” directed by Mr. Sherry - who is also a debut director. It was one of the applicant for selection to exhibit the film in the 16th International Film Festival of Kerala (IFFK in short) to be held at Thiruvananthapuram between 09.12.2012 to 16.12.2012. It is not in dispute that totally four films were selected and recommended by the selection committee for competition, including the film produced by the appellant herein. According to the appellant, at the instance of the persons, whose films were not selected persuaded the committee to remove the film of the appellant from exhibition, pointing out certain fallacies not only in the application but also the DVD submitted by the W.A No. 1855 of 2011 :2: appellant along with the application. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant approached the learned Single Judge, seeking the following reliefs: (i) to issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ or direction commanding the respondents 1 to 3 not to cancel the selection given as per Exhibit P4 to the petitioner's film “Adi- madhyantham” for International Film Festival Competition 16th International Film Festival of Kerala at Thiruvananthapuram, as threatened in Exts. P6, P8 to P10. (ii) to declare that the selection given to the petitioner's film vide Ext. P4 is not liable to be cancelled by R1 to R3 as threatened in Ext. P6, P8 to P10, for which they have no power or authority as per the Regulations. (iii) to issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ or direction commanding the Respondents 1 to 3 to permit the screening of the petitioner's film “Adi-madhyantham” for International Film Festival Competition in the 16th IFFK at Thiruvananthapuram as has been decided in Ext. P4. (iv) to issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ quashing the decision, if any taken by respondents 1 to 3, behind his back, to cancel the selection of the petitioners film for competition in the 16th International Film Festival of Kerala, after calling for the same, being arbitrary and illegal. (v) grant such other reliefs which this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper to be granted on the facts of the case. 3. As a matter of fact, the appellant approached the learned Single Judge questioning the show-cause notice issued to him dated 25.11.2011, W.A No. 1855 of 2011 :3: which is at Ext. P6. Ext. P7 is the reply sent by the appellant to the show- cause notice issued by the first respondent. After considering Ext. P1 regulations for the film festival in question, the learned Single Judge, referring to Ext. P6 as well as Ext. P7, pointed out, the cause for issuing Ext. P6, the DVD given was not subtitled in English and therefore, there was justification in rejecting the film of the appellant being exhibited. Another deficit was, the application said the work was completed but factually it was incorrect. Therefore the reason for rejecting exhibition of the film of the appellant was, suppression of true fact, that the film was completed before the last date of submission of application i.e. 30.09.2011. 4. Ext. P1 is the regulations, which govern either acceptance or rejection of a film for entering the festival in question. The important and relevant regulation would be 3.2, which reads as under : 3.2. Rules covering the competition section : Selection committee recommend films for the competition. The IFFK invites the films as per recommendation. Unless a special waiver is granted, only those films meeting the following conditions are chosen for invitation in competition in the following sections : A) International Competition. B) Malayalam Cinema Now C) Indian Cinema Today 1. Entry of the International competition is for films produced or co-produced in an Asian, African and Latin American country. W.A No. 1855 of 2011 :4: The nationality of the Director is not a consideration. Entry for the Indian Cinema section is for films produced or co-produced in India. Entry for the Malayalam Cinema Now section is for films in the Malayalam Language. 2. Films that have been produced/or had first theatrical screening on or after 1st September and having English subtitles are eligible to participate. The first theatrical screening will be taken into consideration where no proof of date of completion is available. 3. Films selected for International competition should not have participated in any other International Film Festival Competition in India. 4. Selection of films for competition is at the discretion of the committee, set up by the Academy. The Chairman of the Academy as Director of the Festival has a special right to waive any condition for participation in the Competition. 5. No legal claim for participation in the competition can be filed. 6. No invited film shall be withdrawn from the festival programme. 7. During the entire period of the festival, none of the invited films shall be shown outside the festival venue, before its official presentation. 8. Selection at any other International festival does not ensure selection to IFFK. 9. Films submitted in a previous edition of the festival cannot be considered for competition again but may be considered for inclusion in other non competitive sections. Works in progress will be considered but cannot be reentered for a subsequent festival. 5. Similarly, Article 6 is relevant as the learned counsel for the appellant places reliance on the same, which reads as under: W.A No. 1855 of 2011 :5: Article 6. Malayalam Language Films selected in IFFK : 1. The selection committee set up by the Kerala State Chalachitra Academy will recommend Malayalam language films for the competition and Malayalam Cinema Today sections. 2. Malayalam language films selected for the competition section and Malayalam Cinema Today section of the IFFK will be entitled to a grant of Rs.100,000/- (Rupees One hundred thousand) each. 50 % of the amount for the Director and 50% of the amount for the producer/producers as mentioned in the entry form. 3. The Kerala State Chalachitra Academy will make one new English subtitled print of the Malayalam language films selected for the competition section and Malayalam cinema Today section of the IFFK. The Kerala State Chalachitra Academy will pay for the cost of the new print and subtitling. An old print will not be purchased by the Academy. The producer will provide the negative and the translated subtitles text in English. The films prints will belong to the Academy and will be used for non commercial and academic screening purposes only. 6. Reading the Rules covering the competition section, 3 sections were provided for entering the competition, i.e. (A). International Competition, (B). Malayalam Cinema Now and (C). Indian Cinema Today. The appellant's film is under A category - international competition. Ext. P4 is dated 25.11.2011, but both the counsel inform the Court, it was a typographical mistake and it should be 25.10.2011. This was sent by the W.A No. 1855 of 2011 :6: Kerala State Chalachithra Academy informing the appellant that his film 'Adimadhyantham' was selected for the competition section of the 16th IFFK to be held at Trivandrum as stated above. Subsequently, Ext. P6 came to be issued on 25.11.2011, calling upon the appellant to explain the query indicated in the above said exhibit by 29.11.2011. The appellant sent Ext. P7 reply, which is dated 29.11.2011. In order to understand, what exactly was the reason why such a show-cause notice at Ext. P6 was issued, it would be purposeful to reproduce entire exhibit, which reads as under: “As per article for (1) of the Regulations of the 16th IFFK along with the Entry Form an undertaking certifying the date of completion of the film should be submitted. You have submitted an application dated 28.09.2011 for your film 'Aadhimandhyantham' at Academy along with an undertaking, and stating that your film had been completed before 30th September 2011. So, we have considered your film fully relying your application as well as undertaking. It was shown as a completed film to the Selection Committee. Now it has been brought to our notice that: (1) The DVD was submitted without any title or English subtitle. (2) The DVD submitted was not a completed work. (3) It was reported that shooting and post production work of 'Aadhimadhyantham' was done even after submission of the DVD for the competition section. We request you to kindly explain the circumstances in which you have filed a wrong undertaking. You may meet me with W.A No. 1855 of 2011 :7: a written explanation within 3 days i.e. by 29th November 2011 failing which the Festival Director will take necessary further action.” Reply reads as under, which is at Ext. P7 “Kindly accept the explanation as I am asked by you. As mentioned in your letter the reports came out about the completion of work are absolutely baseless. Out shooting never went on after submitting the entry form and DVD. Even a single scene is not added with the film apart from the given DVD. Only color correction, D1, graphics, sound level enhancing etc. are done after submitting the entry. You can compare the film print with the given DVD. If a single scene is added extra you can find and ask explanation from us. We strongly believe that the given DVD is titled. We have never received any such information from Academy that the film is not titled during any stage of screening or scrootning. If informed, we could have sent a second copy in case any technical missing happened while writing DVD. Given DVD was not subtitled as we did not know DVD without subtitles would not be accepted. The statement about the date of completion was sent later as we were informed by Academy that such a document was not submitted. Academy asked us to deliver such a statement stating the completion was done before 30th of the September. Sir kindly make sure all the dilemma to an end. Much news and gossips are coming out in some medias about our film which deeply hurt the feeling of all our crew members. Please take necessary actions from Chalachithra Academy.” W.A No. 1855 of 2011 :8: 7. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel appearing for the KSCA gives us a copy of the letter issued by the Chairman of the Academy dated 03.12.2011, after going through the explanation sent by the appellant herein dated 29.11.2011, which reads as under: “As per the reference cited the Secretary, Kerala State Chalachitra Academy, had issued a notice to you and requested you to appear in person and submit your explanation. But you have not appeared in person, instead you had sent a reply by e- mail. I have gone through your reply and verified the documents submitted by you and also I have seen your movie 'Adimadyandham' along with the Executive Committee members. Now we are convinced that your film suffers from following disqualifications. 1. The DVD submitted by you is without any credit titles and as such the DVD lacks authenticity. 2. The DVD submitted is without subtitles, which is against the mandatory requirements. A film without subtitle is not eligible for preview purpose. 3. The film submitted by you is not a complete film as I found the pilot track and the dub track are intermixed. There is no proper synchronizing of the sound track. So, the written undertaking given by you that the film was a complete film is utter falsehood and misleading. Submission of an application with a false undertaking is sufficient to disqualify your film. 4. Your application contains a wrong entry stating that the film had been edited by Smt. Bina Paul, who is none other that W.A No. 1855 of 2011 :9: the Artistic Director / Deputy Director of the Academy, who is in- charge of the conduct of the festival. Smt. Bina Paul had submitted a statement that, she had not edited the film. Entering the name of one of the Chief Organizers of the Festival in the credit of your film, without her permission is with ulterior motives and that itself warrants disqualification of your film. 5. It is further submitted that by submitting your incomplete film with false undertaking and false entry had deprived the opportunity of other film makers who had submitted their entires with the approved guidelines. 6. I have also gone through the observation of the Selection Committee that there are many streaks of amateurishness in the treatment and especially in the technical side regarding your film which substantiates my decision. The IFFK competition being considered as one of the best competition package in the world, an incomplete film with amateurishness and technical defects cannot be included in the competition section representing our country. The above mentioned reasons and circumstances have convinced me as well as the Executive Board that you had a mischief and unfair methods to get a wrong entry into the competition section of IFFK, hence after applying my wisdom. I, as the Festival Director, using the nherent powers of the Festival Director have decided to reject the recommendations of the Selection committee and your film 'Adimadhyandam' is disqualified from the competition Section.” By reading the contents of the letter dated 03.12.2011, the disqualification attached to the film of the appellant indicates several deficits; i.e. the DVD was without any credit titles leading to doubts regarding the authenticity; W.A No. 1855 of 2011 :10: the subtitle was missing which was mandatory as per sub Rule (2) of Rule 3.2 under Article 3 at Ext. P1; and the film was not complete, as earlier indicated at Ext. P6, that a part of shooting and postproduction of the film was done even after submission of the DVD for competition section. Even with regard to the person who edited the film there is discrepancy in the application sent by the appellant. The application is incomplete with false undertaking and false entry. 8. By reading Exts. P1, P4, P6, P7 and the orders of the Chairman of the KSCA dated 03.12.2011, we notice there is an admission on the part of the appellant that subsequent to submission of the application with DVD, there was colour correction (D1), graphics, sound level enhancement and according to the appellant's counsel this would not mean incomplete work, therefore, there was no justification for the first respondent to deny an opportunity for his film to be exhibited in IFFK. No doubt, at Ext. P1, there is no material indicating what is a complete work. In the generic sense, completion would mean it must be completed in every respect and must be ready for exhibition even as a commercial venture. Therefore, the arguments of the learned senior counsel for the appellant that only colour correction and sound enhancement was done and the same cannot be taken as incomplete work, cannot be accepted. W.A No. 1855 of 2011 :11: 9. Then coming to subtitle, the learned counsel took us through sub Article 3 of Article 6, to substantiate his contentions that it was the duty of the first respondent KSCA to make new English subtitled print of the Malayalam language films selected for the competition and the KSCA alone should bear the cost of the new print and subtitling. According to the learned senior counsel, with this sub Article 3 of Article 6 if one reads sub Rule 2 of Rule 3.2 under Article 3, there is no requirement of strict compliance of submitting DVD with subtitle. When these two provisions are read together, then the stipulation to make available one new English subtitled print at the cost of the academy, at no stretch of imagination can be understood as absolving the mandatory provision at sub Rule 2 of Rule 3.2 under Article 3. In other words, when the regulation contemplates submission of DVD of Malayalam language film with subtitle in English, it has to be given in that fashion. The learned senior counsel for the appellant contended that there was one correction made by him to the application given by him, as the academy itself asked such a correction before 30.09.2011 and that, if this deficit was also indicated, he would have corrected the same then and there, therefore, the mistake lies with the first respondent academy, may also not hold good, for the simple reason that, when an application is required to be submitted, as indicated at Ext. P1, the W.A No. 1855 of 2011 :12: application has to be submitted in that fashion alone and there cannot be any concession unless such concession was sought and waived by the Chairman concerned, as indicated at Ext.P1 itself. Therefore, the deficit of subtitle in English is also apparent on the face of the record, as it is an admitted fact by the appellant. 10. Though, we find that the letter dated 03.12.2011 indicates six deficits, the main deficit - why a show-cause notice was issued at Ext. P6 is as indicated above. The learned Single Judge, after taking into consideration all the material facts, including the contents of Ext. P1, was justified in saying that the film was incomplete, when it was submitted and is contrary to the undertaking given by the appellant, while submitting his application. There was no title as such indicating the authenticity and so also subtitle requirement was not complied with by the appellant. 11. Sub rule 6 of Rule 3.2 under Article 3 refers to withdrawal from the film festival programme. As per this Rule, no invited film could be withdrawn from the film festival programme, therefore, Ext. P6 show cause notice was not justified, was also one of the contention. Withdrawal from the film festival programme, here, under the circumstances, would only refers to voluntary withdrawal of the film by the producer and not by the academy. Therefore, what we could understand from this rule is, once a W.A No. 1855 of 2011 :13: film is invited to be exhibited in the film festival, the producer cannot withdraw the same from the festival programme. 12. It is also pertinent to mention that for refusing to entertain the film of the appellant, no malafides are thrown against the first respondent, because the other film which was selected for exhibiting at IFFK 'Adaminte Makan Abu' was also rejected subsequently, as he violated one of the terms of Rule 3.2 i.e. by exhibiting the film at international film festival competition in India. As there is no preference given to other film, which also had the recommendation is barred from exhibition at the on coming festival and no other film being selected for the festival, we can opine that, there are no malafides as such exercised by the first respondent academy either in selecting or rejecting the film for exhibiting at IFFK at Trivandrum. 13. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion, no interference is warranted so far as the judgment of the learned Single Judge is concerned. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. Sd/- MANJULA CHELLUR, Ag. CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd