I was quite disturbed after reading the news piece regarding the banning of the movie “Kites” in Karnataka. The reasoning given for this ban, as reported in a newspaper, was that there was some dispute between the distributors and the Karnataka Film Chambers of Commerce. The dispute was on the issue of the number of screens that the movie could be released across. This was because in Karnataka non-Kannada movies can only be released in a certain number of screens so that there are always screens reserved for Kannada movies, and the distributors flouted this norm. The reasoning behind this division as reported by the newspaper was that it was done for protecting the interests of Kannada movies.
I would like to opine my dissent to this decision of KFCC. My dissent is on the ground that the basic aim behind the release of any movie by a distributor is to maximise his profits, and his profits are only maximised when the film is highly acclaimed by the populace. Now, if a distributor wants to release a certain movie in a large number of theatres, then it shows that in the prediction of the distributor, the movie will be widely accepted by the populace. The fact that needs to be taken into consideration here is that the distributors are the best predictors of the expected popularity of a movie as it is an integral part of their job and their lifeline depends on such predictions. Let us keep this conclusion in mind and then move to the next step. When a body like the KFCC restricts the rights of the distributor to release the movie in any number of screens as he deems fit, thereby reserving screens for certain movies, it is essentially limiting the options available to the audiences and additionally imposing a certain kind of cinema on them. This argument is based on the assumption that the distributors will only want to release a movie across a large number of screens if they think that there is a very high probability of that movie being widely acclaimed and as already argued they are in the best position to predict such a thing.
Thus there is no rationale in this decision of the KFCC, because its actions amount to forcing movies down the throat of the people, who necessarily would not savour such cinema. This is wrong on the following two counts-
Firstly, it does not make any economic sense because by this step you are reducing the profits of the film fraternity and hence the government loses on revenue as tax can only be calculated on the amount of income earned.
Secondly, this violates the fundamental rights of the distributor as defined in article 19(1)(g), of the Constitution of India. This article guarantees the right to practice any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business. The only restriction that can be placed on this right is on the basis of public interest, this being stated in clause 6 of article 19. But, as already argued above, I do not see how this move can be considered to be in public interest. Therefore, I believe that this is a violation of our Constitution as well.
I would also like to state that the argument that this is necessary for the preservation of Kannada movies cannot be accepted because without any rational reason and under the guise of the conservation of a certain movie industry, the KFCC cannot take away the right of choice from the people. And in my humble opinion this action of the KFCC does indirectly take the right of choice from the people because the people should have a right to decide what
they want to see. And, if they do not like the decisions of the distributors regarding screening of movies, then there will be a consequent fall in the viewership and the distributors will be forced to give more importance to Kannada movies, but this decision should be left between the distributors and the populace, to be decided on the basis of the interplay of market forces.
I would like to opine my dissent to this decision of KFCC. My dissent is on the ground that the basic aim behind the release of any movie by a distributor is to maximise his profits, and his profits are only maximised when the film is highly acclaimed by the populace. Now, if a distributor wants to release a certain movie in a large number of theatres, then it shows that in the prediction of the distributor, the movie will be widely accepted by the populace. The fact that needs to be taken into consideration here is that the distributors are the best predictors of the expected popularity of a movie as it is an integral part of their job and their lifeline depends on such predictions. Let us keep this conclusion in mind and then move to the next step. When a body like the KFCC restricts the rights of the distributor to release the movie in any number of screens as he deems fit, thereby reserving screens for certain movies, it is essentially limiting the options available to the audiences and additionally imposing a certain kind of cinema on them. This argument is based on the assumption that the distributors will only want to release a movie across a large number of screens if they think that there is a very high probability of that movie being widely acclaimed and as already argued they are in the best position to predict such a thing.
Thus there is no rationale in this decision of the KFCC, because its actions amount to forcing movies down the throat of the people, who necessarily would not savour such cinema. This is wrong on the following two counts-
Firstly, it does not make any economic sense because by this step you are reducing the profits of the film fraternity and hence the government loses on revenue as tax can only be calculated on the amount of income earned.
Secondly, this violates the fundamental rights of the distributor as defined in article 19(1)(g), of the Constitution of India. This article guarantees the right to practice any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business. The only restriction that can be placed on this right is on the basis of public interest, this being stated in clause 6 of article 19. But, as already argued above, I do not see how this move can be considered to be in public interest. Therefore, I believe that this is a violation of our Constitution as well.
I would also like to state that the argument that this is necessary for the preservation of Kannada movies cannot be accepted because without any rational reason and under the guise of the conservation of a certain movie industry, the KFCC cannot take away the right of choice from the people. And in my humble opinion this action of the KFCC does indirectly take the right of choice from the people because the people should have a right to decide what
they want to see. And, if they do not like the decisions of the distributors regarding screening of movies, then there will be a consequent fall in the viewership and the distributors will be forced to give more importance to Kannada movies, but this decision should be left between the distributors and the populace, to be decided on the basis of the interplay of market forces.
