“A superstar is not above the law,” declared BN Tiwari, the president of the Federation of Western India Cine Employees (FWICE), while addressing the media in Mumbai on Monday over Ranveer Singh’s unceremonious exit from Farhan Akhtar’s directorial Don 3 this past December. The film body has now asked its 4 lakh-plus members — including technicians and workers — from working with Ranveer until he appears before them personally to resolve the issue. Ranveer is all set to roll out his next, Pralay, in the months to come and the directive can make the process of assembling crew extremely complicated, making it akin to a ban.

But the question is, does the FWICE really have the legal authority to issue a “non-cooperation directive” to its members and prohibit them from collaborating with Ranveer in any professional capacity? “FWICE is a federation of craft associations, not a statutory regulator. Its authority is consensual and confined to its members,” Sanjay Vasudevan, a media and entertainment lawyer at Bay Counsel LLP, tells SCREEN. He argues that since Ranveer is not even a member of the FWICE, he “is outside its jurisdiction, and the directive has no binding force against him or third parties”.

For the same reason, Ranveer isn’t even legally bound to engage with the FWICE for discussions. The film body stated that as per its rules, it sent three periodical reminders to the actor every 10 days, inviting to present his side of the story. But it’s exactly that — an invitation — and by no stretch, any form of summon. “Its invitation is a request, and declining a request from a non-authoritative body attracts no liability. Ranveer is well within his rights to not indulge in the conversations,” argues Vasudevan.

“Having said that, it’s always more prudent to engage with the other side. The reality is there are so many competing stakeholders. When indifference seeps in, then there tends to be such a reactive response. Selective, controlled engagement may shorten the dispute, but it’s a commercial choice, and not a legal duty. The ‘no one is above the law’ framing is rhetorical, not legal,” he adds.

“Essentially, the trade union in question is seeking its members to not cooperate with the person because he’s acted adversely in the interests of not only the producers, but also the workmen working on the film. This doesn’t come as much from legal authority as from a union which has a certain leverage,” explains Vasudevan.

He adds that while there are members within the union who can choose not to act in tandem with the union, their repercussions at the most would be rejection of membership from taking an adverse position. “Outside of that, there’s no legal sanctity per se,” asserts Vasudevan. However, he also adds that the FWICE can benefit from reconsideration of such a directive because it’s an “ethical dilemma” for the workers to comply with their union’s ask despite their livelihood depending on working in a film headlined by Ranveer Singh.

“Ultimately, all these unions are here to fight the good fight for their workers, but their reactions can’t be disproportionate to the actual harm caused,” states Vasudevan, adding, “Such a directive should be issued in a way that in the event that the workmen, in the event of working with him to earn their livelihood, should not face any ramifications for doing so. They should not be disqualified because the membership offers them certain privileges. That’s something to be sensitive about as well.”

Ranveer has already committed to his next project, Jai Mehta’s zombie apocalypse thriller Pralay. The film, mounted on a huge budget, is expected to go on floors this year. Would then the producers — Applause Entertainment and Hansal Mehta and Sahil Saigal’s True Story Films — be liable to follow the directive issued by the FWICE? “The risk is operational (technicians and crew declining to service the shoot), not legal. There is no statutory mechanism to penalize producers for engaging the actor,” points out Vasudevan.

“The reality with how a union operates is all basis cooperation. If they elect to not cooperate, they can do so legally. But again, the union can be reactive. There could be some ramifications that Applause and True Story Films may also face,” he adds. While the FWICE warned the producers that they may face losses if they go ahead with Ranveer’s projects, Vasudevan claims “the statement is just a warning, not a legal prohibition”. But he also underlines the other side of the coin. “While one has the right, the other may not be under the obligation to work with you. It’s a little bit of a matrix,” adds Vasudevan.

This makes it a pressure tactic by a trade union to force Ranveer to come to the negotiation table.

The usual remedy, as one has witnessed with similar cases in the past, is when an actor walks out of a project (for instance, Sara Ali Khan in Kedarnath), the producers usually send them a legal notice. However, since Farhan Akhtar-Ritesh Sidhwani-led Excel Entertainment hasn’t taken that route yet, there’s reason to suspect that they may not have a strong case given how their contract with Ranveer was shaped.

“Contractually, when Excel and Ranveer entered into an agreement, there might be clauses which excluded the intervention of trade unions and other such bodies. We encourage parties to cooperate with the respective trade unions, but sometimes there’s a caveat that waives the interference of any such union. I anticipate there was such language in the contract, but we’d be able to arrive at that only once the contract is made public,” states Vasudevan.

He also hints at the possibility of the absence of a kill fee clause, which is a stipulated sum the actor commits to pay the production house on voluntary exit. “Now, the problem might be their lack of fortitude from a legal standpoint to envision such a walkout. They might have had loosely defined termination rights,” argued Vasudevan. Excel Entertainment has previously collaborated with Ranveer on two successful projects — Zoya Akhtar’s Dil Dhadakne Do (2015) and Gully Boy (2019) — and had also signed a three-film deal with the actor.

“The indemnity provision is sometimes subjected to a cap of liability. Now, if the liability was capped for Ranveer to a certain amount, regardless of what happened, you can’t quite make a claim beyond that,” says Vasudevan, highlighting another contentious clause. “There’s generally an exclusion of indirect damages. Have the parties contracted in way that tried to account for such a situation? If they had not, then they might be on a stickier wicket. And that’s perhaps why they’re not immediately legally enforcing it,” he adds.

But he’s confident that despite the possible disadvantage, Excel Entertainment could still go to court. “What a good lawyer would argue is to enforce not just the letter, but the spirit of the contract. That’s the more challenging case to make if the contract reads in any other kind of way,” he argues. “It’s not the first time an actor has walked out of a film. You can see there’s a rhetoric throughout that he was always satisfied with the script. The reason they’re trying to build that narrative to make a case that he’s left the film out of convenience and for frivolous reasons rather than something substantive. Ranveer might make the case there was a cause, but we can’t extrapolate that unless there’s further comment,” adds Vasudevan.

Speaking of taking to court, even if Excel Entertainment chooses not to go down that path, Vasudevan feels Ranveer has “some remedies” when it comes to the ban imposed by the FWICE. “You have the constitutional right to be able to carry out any trade of your choice, so long as it’s legal. Right now, the film body is more of a toothless tiger. But when it gains teeth to the point where it restricts him to engage with more producers, I’d imagine he’d challenge the union’s directive or at least get them to modify the terms so that his right to work is protected,” says Vasudevan. If he wishes, Ranveer could seek legal remedies under Section 3(3)(b) of the Competition Act, Article 19(1)(g) of the Indian Constitution, and Section 27, Contract Act.

Also Read: FWICE’s selective outrage: Ban on Ranveer Singh, but no action on 242 editors’ 2023 plea

Vasudevan claims that at least in India, there haven’t been precedents as peculiar as these. “The present matter may, for the first time, test the practical scope of federation authority against the formal competition-law framework,” he says, adding, “Historically, such disputes resolve through informal pressure, mediation by industry seniors, and quiet settlement or withdrawal of the directive. FWICE’s own acknowledgement that producer bodies should ideally have taken this stand is, in legal terms, a candid admission that it is operating beyond its traditional lane.”

Hence, should the matter proceed to its formal resolution, “it has the potential to become the leading authority on the limits of associational action in the Indian entertainment sector”.