Damages, Not Exile: Ranveer Singh and the Case Against Bollywood’s Blacklists

Introduction

If the federation of labour unions that represent an entire industry tells its members not to work with a particular actor because of an allegation of breaching a film contract, then this action will turn the private commercial dispute into a collective market sanction against that actor. A very good example to show how this is more of a structural issue than a personal one is the Ranveer Singh incident where there was a non-cooperative action taken by other members of the film industry against him after he had left one project and turned down another project, without there being a neutral determination of whether or not Mr. Singh actually broke the contract. A producer may sue for breach; however, the union cannot prevent a producer from working with a producer due to a breach until there has been a neutral determination made as to whether there has been a breach. The solution to a contractual wrong is a contractual one, not an exclusionary one.

Damages, Not Exile

If a financier has already spent money on writing, pre-production activities as casting and marketing, they will incur actual losses if an actor quits prior to actually shooting the film or tv show (contract law deals with that as well). If the contract contains either exclusivity clauses, lockout provisions or liquidated damages, all of these terms are enforceable and the question about whether there has actually been a breach of contract can be determined by either the contract’s claims procedure or through the courts. Suing for damages will provide compensation for a loss. A group directing members not to hire a certain individual is fundamentally different; it removes the ability for them to access the marketwhere that person wishes to work. The entertainment industry is built upon a system of reputation, relationship and access and therefore an order by a federation to its members not to employ a specific artist significantly diminishes the artist’s leverage and ability to earn, even before an adjudicator weighs in on whether or not there has been a breach of an agreement.

Punishment Without Due Process

When you boycott an entire industry you're missing procedural protections. Was notice and hearing given to the artist? Was the contract reviewed, the producer's losses evaluated, the artist's explanation considered? Was the punishment fair and was there an appeal? If the answer to any of these is no, then it stops being about resolving conflict and becomes personal retribution. This is especially true within the entertainment industry as there are many legitimate reasons why a person may leave their job - script changes, schedule conflicts, non-payment, illness, an erosion of trust, etc. Just because someone leaves does not mean that they are breaching their contract and just because a breach occurs it doesn't mean that the person should be ineligible to work professionally for the rest of their lives. It is unreasonable for a trade associationto be an investigator, judge and executioner all at the same time.

A Competition-Law Problem

When an association instructs its members to stop dealing with a specific artist, that individual artist is not able to access the market, and any producers who may have worked with them in the future are also prohibited from doing so. This can be seen as both a refusal to do business with them, as well as a coordinated boycott. The Indian entertainment industry is not simply a creative outlet. It is also an industry in which talent, production, distribution, and intellectual property can all be purchased and sold. As noted by the Supreme Court in CCI v. Coordination Committee of Artists and Technicians, any kind of concerted boycott by an association of businesses is likely to be found to violate antitrust laws. While collective action may have legitimate disciplinary reasons or may provide advice, they are very different from a group decision to boycott an artist entirely, since that type of action will completely eliminate competition for talent (because artists rely on their reputation and the ability to move from one project to another). In addition, because of the way that artists work and earn a living from their previous work, the long-term damage done to an artist by a public boycott that is later rescinded can be extensive (especially where newspapers take the opportunity to blur the line between a legal dispute and a moral decision).

The Contractual Fix

To protect producers, costless walkaways cannot be left open; they can be addressed through strong contracts and not through a ban. Agreements should distinguish between commitment levels (letter of intent/ signed deal/ workshop/ shooting) and, therefore, the exposure should reflect where along the project line the parties are at or what was lost actually. In addition, the agreements should include clear exit clauses, including but not limited to notice periods, legitimate reasons for withdrawal from the agreement, cure period, and consequences if the termination is unreasonable. Liquidated damages must represent a valid pre-estimate of loss (i.e. not punitive). As Indian cinema corporate, completion bonds and risk allocation based on insurance should replace trust-based arrangements. Finally, high-value projects must include fast-track arbitration and/or emergency mediation provisions; film disputes are time-sensitive, and the recent recognition in Amazon v. Future Retail of emergency arbitration demonstrates that urgent confidential relief can be achieved without resorting to public pressure.

Conclusion

Trade organizations should provide constructive support to businesses through dispute resolution instead of punishing members for their actions as part of a punitive approach. In order for an organization to provide this support, there needs to be a set process for resolving disputes. Dispute Resolution Process will require three steps: submitting a written complaint to the organization; providing notice of the other party's response to the complaint; and referring the matter to a neutral mediation panel within a specified time period, after which the parties would pursue either arbitration or civil litigation. No organization should issue any public statements regarding the parties involved in the dispute until a neutral mediator has resolved the matter; at most, the organization may acknowledge that the matter is currently subject to mediation. Producers Guild of India and similar organizations should publish Model Contracts that address issues such as casting, scheduling, payment, withdrawal and credit. The only important take away is that in a growing entertainment industry, the law of contracts defines how a party responds to a breach of contract through damages, mediation and arbitration; no other means of resolution, including collective civil disobedience or collective testimony in violation of due process and antitrust laws, is fully acceptable under the law.

Author- Devansh Awasthi, 3rd year student at Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University

Edited By- Tanu Mehta