FROM FOG TO REALITY: THE BRIEF DESCRIPTION ABOUT THE DIGITAL MEDIA LAW AND INDIAN CINEMATOGRAPHY UNDER THE UMBRELLA OF INDIAN STATUTORY ACTs AND BODIES.
ABSTRACT:
India is indeed a massive global economic powerhouse, around world’s most populous nation over 1.4 billion people making it an unprecedent market for volume and consumer good. The broader Indian retail market is estimated roughly 1.1 trillion dollars, and its expansion is still continuing, this is the clear indication about the India’s position as top three largest consumer market worldwide, alongside the USA and China. Whether it would be the category of the stock & financial market (4th largest in global index), economic output (5th largest in global indices with 3.7 trillion dollars), India is the top and most suitable place for the industrialist, FII’s (foreign institutional investors), and the traders. The cinema market is also the rapid growing market along with other products and services. It is estimated that Indian film industry generates roughly USD 6 billion dollars annually with its gross domestic box office surpassing 13,395 crore (approx. USD 1.6 billion). As the largest producers of films globally by volume, it continues to expand at an impressive double-digit rate.
ANALYZING THE INDIAN CINEMA MARKET:
Before dive into the statutes and regulations let’s have a look in the market size and the breakdown in detail. According to the data’s, domestic theatrical revenues ranges between 13,000 crores to 14,000 crores setting the new industry records backed by the strong regional cinema. The broader Indian media and entertainment market which including (OTTs, Films, broadcast and print) exceeds 30 billion. If we have the closer look of this market, India roughly represents 5% of the global movie and entertainment markets. The major backend factors such as the surge of massive blockbuster in regional language (like Telugu, Tamil, Malayalam) has driven viewership far beyond the native speaking states. The second factor is digital and OTT monetization, streaming services and digital rights represent the fast-growing revenue segments, providing the alternate monetization methods alongside the theatre release. The report has revealed that the industry produces 1500 to 2000 features film annually across more than 20 languages. Analysts project the Indian movie, and entertainment market will expand rapidly with the annual growth rate of 12.6% (CAGR) potentially reaching nearly USD 15 billion by 2033. This multibillion-dollar juggernaut expected to override the predetermined value.
Providing the 125 growths of CAGR
The main source of income that have been produced by the industry are
1. Box office breakdown: Hindi cinema accounts for the largest single screen share of box office revenue roughly around 44%.
2. Theatre and streaming of the Indian cinemas which cause the biggest reason for massive and blockbuster earnings.
HOW THE CINEMA INDUSTRY WORKS:
The Indian cinema industry is working upon the very simplified and easy way but its time-consuming processing for releasing and making has made the misconception of complicated way.
The film business mainly involves three stages–production, distribution and exhibition. A producer spends money during the making of the film. A film Distributor acquires distribution rights from the producer of the film. The distributor then makes copies of the film, spends money on publicity, advertising, marketing, cost of prints and other distribution costs. The film distributors, either themselves or through sub-distributors, then enter into agreement with the exhibitors (owners of the single screen theatres and multiplexes) for screening of the films. The revenue generated at the exhibition stage is shared by the producers, distributors and exhibitors as per their respective revenue-sharing arrangements.
NECESSITY BEHIND THE ENECTMENT OF CINEMA LICENSING BOARD:
To screen a film publicly in a theatre, two distinct categories of licenses are requiring before release, Film certification (clearing the movie for public viewing) and a cinema venue licensing (clearing the physical premises to operate safely).
(A) : Film certification process
1. Film certification (for the movie itself):
Before any movie can be screened publicly it must be reviewed and certified by the central board of films. For the process the person submitting the application is required to submit the film in its online portal along with its processing fees.
2. Screening:
An examining committee will review the film and assign a rating (e.g. U, U/A, A, S) and suggest any necessary cuts and modification.
3. Certificate issuance:
Once cleared, the CBFC certificate is issued, and film must be screened with this certificate displayed at the beginning.
(B) Cinema hall and venue licenses
1. Cinematography license: granted by local district magistrate (or state licensing authority) under the state cinema regulation act. It is typically valid for 1-3 years and requires annual renewal.
2. NOC from key department: you must secure no objection certificate from the following before cinema license is granted, such as fire safety clearance from the chief fire officer stating the buildings meets all egress and safety codes, electrical inspector certification that ensures wiring, acoustics, and power backups are completely safe, local municipal corporation who are the competent authority for issuing trade license and approved building/ construction plan etc.
3. Public performance/ music licensing: a license from the Indian performing rights society is required if
there is plan for playing copyrighted background music or host live performance on the premises.
LEGALITIES:
The Indian cinema is also statutorised by the Indian law. Under the certain provisions of the Indian cinematography act all the entities who are engaging in industry must follow in order to avoid the legal complication.
Under the section of 4 of the Indian cinematography act 1952, which says about “any person desiring to exhibit any films shall be in prescribed manner to the board of certification (advisory board) for a certification thereof and the board may examining all the film in the prescribed manner, and the board after taking all the measures and after examine all the records submitted before, sanctioned the film for the unrestricted public exhibition and sanctioned the film for the public exhibition.
Penalties for contraventions of this Part. —3
[(1) If any person—
(a) exhibits or permits to be exhibited in any place—
(I) any film other than a film which has been certified by the board as suitable for unrestricted public exhibition or for public exhibition restricted to adults 4 [or to members of any profession or any class of persons] and which, when exhibited, displays the prescribed mark of the Board and has not been altered or tampered with in any way since such mark was affixed thereto, (ii) any film, which has been certified by the Board as suitable for public exhibition restricted to adults, to any person who is not an adult, 5
4
[(iia) any film which has been certified by the Board as suitable for public exhibition restricted to any profession or class of persons, to a person who is not a member of such profession or who is not a member of such class,
(b) without lawful authority (the burden of proving which shall be on him), alters or tampers with in any way, any film after it has been certified, or
(c) fails to comply with the provision contained in section 6A or with any order made by the
Central Government or by the Board in the exercise of any of the powers or functions conferred on it by this Act or the rules made thereunder,
1 [he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine which may extend to one lakh rupees, or with both, and in the case of a continuing offence with a further fine which may extend to twenty thousand rupees for each day during which the offence continues:
Provided that a person who exhibits or permits to be exhibited in any place a video film in contravention of the provisions of sub-clause (i) of clause (a) shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three months, but which may extend to three years and with fine which shall not be less than twenty thousand rupees, but which may extend to one lakh rupees, and in the case of a continuing offence with a further fine which may extend to twenty thousand rupees for each day during which the offence continues:
Provided further that a court may, for adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than three months, or a fine of less than twenty thousand rupees]:
[Provided further that] notwithstanding anything contained in section 29 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), it shall be lawful for any Metropolitan Magistrate, or any Judicial Magistrate of the first class specially empowered by the State Government in this behalf, to pass a sentence of fine exceeding five thousand rupees on any person convicted of any offence punishable under this Part:
[Provided also] that no distributor or exhibitor or owner or employee of a cinema house shall be liable to punishment for contravention of any condition of endorsement of caution on a film certified as “UA” under this Part.]
(2) If any person is convicted of an offence punishable under this section committed by him in respect of any film, the convicting court may further direct that the film shall be forfeited to the Government.
(3) The exhibition of a film, in respect of which an “A” certificate 2 [or a “S” certificate or a “UA” certificate] has been granted, to children below the age of three years accompanying their parents or guardians shall not be deemed to be an offence within the meaning of this section.
Section 7 of the cinematography act enlights about “Where a film in respect of which no certificate has been granted under this Act is exhibited, or a film certified as suitable for public exhibition restricted to adults is exhibited to any person who is not an adult or a film is exhibited in contravention of any of the other provisions contained in this Act or of any order made by the Central Government 4
[, the Tribunal] or the Board in the exercise of any of the powers conferred on it, any police officer may, 5 enter any place in which he has reason to believe that the film has been or is being or is likely to be exhibited, search it and seize the film.
(2) All searches under this Act shall be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the 6 [Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974)], relating to searches”.
Sometimes there are so many issues aroused before regarding the plagiarism, cinemas which causing the sentiments of public
YASH RAJ FILMS VS AJAY DEVGAN FILMS:
ALLEGATIONS: Ajay Devgn Films (ADF) accused YRF of abusing its dominant position in the industry. Devgn claimed YRF pressured single-screen exhibitors into screening Jab Tak Hai Jaan by tying the film’s release to their previous blockbuster, Ek Tha Tiger. He argued this unfairly blocked Son of Sardar from securing an adequate number of screens.
YRF STANCE: YRF denied the claims, stating that exhibitors voluntarily chose to screen Jab Tak Hai Jaan (the final directorial venture of Yash Chopra) because of high audience demand.
LEGAL AND RGULATORY RULLINGS:
CCI Dismissal:
ADF took the matter to the Competition Commission of India (CCI). The CCI dismissed the complaint, concluding that YRF’s agreements did not violate the Competition Act and did not cause any “appreciable adverse effect on competition”.
Tribunal Verdict:
Devgn’s company appealed the decision, but the Competition Appellate Tribunal (COMPAT) dismissed the appeal in November 2013, completely vindicating YRF.
THE ANOTHER COMPLICATION RELATING TO PADMAVAT MOVIE BY MR SANJAY LEELA BHANSALI:
The Padmavati (later released as Padmavati) controversy involved widespread protests, violence, and legal battles sparked by allegations that the film distorted history and featured a romantic dream sequence between the Rajput Queen Padmavati and the Muslim invader Alauddin Khilji, which offended the sentiments of the Rajput community. The saga unfolded through a series of violent disruptions, legal battles, and landmark court decisions:1. Physical Assault and Vandalism Jaipur Attack (January 2017): Members of the Shri Rajput Karni Sena stormed the sets of the film at Jaigarh Fort in Jaipur. They physically assaulted director Sanjay Leela Bhansali, slapped him, pulled his hair, and vandalized camera equipment. Kolhapur Arson (March 2017): Production sets at Mhasai Pathar in Kolhapur were set on fire by unidentified attackers, destroying costumes and sets.
3. Supreme Court Dismissals: Multiple petitions were filed in the Supreme Court by fringe groups and politicians seeking to ban the film and halt its certification. The Supreme Court consistently refused to impose a pre-release ban, stating that creative expression must be protected and that the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) was the appropriate authority to judge the movie.3. Censorship and Name Change To appease protesters and comply with the CBFC, Bhansali made modifications to the film prior to its release. The title was changed from Padmavati to Padmaavat to emphasize that the movie was an adaptation of a fictional 16th-century Sufi poem by Malik Muhammad Jayasi rather than a strict historical account. The CBFC granted the film a U/A certificate with five modifications, including changes to the controversial “Ghoomar” song and alterations to the alleged dream sequence.4. State Bans and Supreme Court InterventionState Prohibitions: Despite the CBFC certification, several state governments (including Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat, and Haryana) announced bans on screening the film, citing potential law and order issues. Supreme Court Ruling (January 2018): Sanjay Leela Bhansali’s production team challenged these state bans in the Supreme Court. The apex court ruled in favor of the filmmakers, stating that states cannot ban a film that has been duly certified by the CBFC, as it infringes upon constitutional rights to freedom of speech and expression. Following this order, the states were forced to lift their bans, and the film finally released nationwide.
TH3E ANOTHER LEGAL BATTLE IN THE SUPREME COURT RULLING:
The Core Dispute
The Complaint: A moviegoer and school teacher sued YRF, arguing that she and her family felt deceived and disappointed because the highly publicized track “Jabra Fan” was absent from the movie in the cinema hall. Initial Rulings: Both the Maharashtra State Commission and the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) sided with the viewer. They ruled that showing a song in promotional trailers and omitting it in the film amounted to an “unfair trade practice” and a “deficiency of service,” ordering YRF to pay Rs 10,000 in compensation and Rs 5,000 for litigation costs. The Supreme Court’s Verdict YRF escalated the matter to the Supreme Court. The apex court ultimately set aside the penalty, establishing a major legal precedent for the Indian entertainment industry: Artistic Discretion: The court ruled that filmmakers and producers retain complete creative control over the editing process, including whether specific songs or scenes make the final cut. Trailers Aren’t Contracts: The Court clarified that promotional trailers are intended to generate interest but are not legally binding contractual offers. Therefore, omitting a promotional track does not constitute a deficiency in service.
CONCLUSION:
While the existence of so many legal issues and other disputes still this industry is the hidden Gem stone in the ocean of wealth.
Author Bio
