Competition Commission of India indicts two powerful film bodies

Veteran Malayalam actor, Thilakan, would have felt vindicated by a landmark order had he been alive. The order, passed by the Competition Commission of India on March 24, found two associations—Association of Malayalam Movie Artists (AMMA) and Film Employees Federation of Kerala (FEFKA)—their office-bearers and two of FEFKA’s affiliates guilty of violating the Competition Act (2002). It found that they had abused their authority and indulged in anti-competitive practices and imposed a penalty of Rs 11.25 lakh on them.

It all started when a director, Vinayan, was blacklisted by these two powerful associations, one belonging to actors and the other to technicians. Malayalam superstars, Mohanlal and Mammootty also belong to these associations and along with Innocent, Edavela Babu, Sibi Malayail and B Unnikrishnan were found guilty of unfairly influencing others against Vijayan.

However, Thilakan, quite like the strong-willed and individualistic characters he played in numerous Malayalam films, continued to act in Vinayan’s films. He had to suffer for that as very little work came his way after that and he was treated as an outcast. But he fought against them as he felt that they behaved like a “mafia” and he had a right to work.

Vinayan went to the Commission and complained that these associations and their office-bearers had banned many actors, technicians, producers and financiers from working with him because of an organisational rivalry. New actors were also threatened and told not to work with him. Vinayan has been fighting the case since 2010.

He told the Commission that AMMA, FEFKA and other “opposite parties” have “affected fair competition in the market, the interests of consumers and freedom of trade carried on by other participants by limiting and restricting the market in contravention of the provisions of Section 3(3) of the Act”. He also charged that the “opposite parties, by virtue of its dominant position in the Malayalam film industry, has sought to control and abuse it within the meaning of Section 4 of the Act”.

The Commission asked its Director General (DG) to investigate, who found that Vinayan’s allegations were indeed true. The DG after many hearings found that these associations used the heft and muscle power of their office to prevent people from working with Vinayan. They threatened, warned and intimidated people in this regard. It was found that there was an explicit organisational ban on Thilakan, despite AMMA, FEFKA and the leading stars denying it.

Thilakan had always alleged that superstars such as Mohanlal and Mammootty ran AMMA and FEFKA by proxy. Ironically, in many movies such Kireedam and Ividam Swargamanu, Thilakan has played Mohanlal’s father with great aplomb and finesse. However, they drifted apart later.

Vijayan told the media after winning the case: “I lost eight years on account of this ‘undeclared ban’. With this CCI verdict, it has been proved that I am right and those against me are wrong.” However, FEFKA’s general secretary and director B Unnikrishnan said they would appeal against the verdict. “The verdict has been very unfortunate as this is not an issue between individuals. We will appeal against this to the appropriate appellate authority as what we dealt with was issues concerning labour, and hence it has to be addressed by the labour department.”

The Commission’s order shows the deep nexus and stranglehold of these two powerful lobbies and how they worked together to create a monopolistic entity. Decisions of AMMA were followed by similar moves by FEFKA and some top actors and technicians worked together to control the industry. But some actors such as Jayasuriya and veteran hand Madhu deposed before the Commission and won the case for Vinayan.

Jayasuriya said that there was an “informal ban on any artist” working with Vinayan and “affirmed having received a call in the year 2013 from Shri Unnikrishnan and Shri Sibi Malayil (President of FEFKA) advising him to avoid working with the Informant till the issues are resolved”. Madhu told the Commission that in 2011, he accepted an offer to act in a film by Vinayan, but the office bearers of FEFKA dissuaded him. Further investigations revealed that cinematographers, art directors, producers and technicians were arm-twisted into not working with Vinayan.

Though Vinayan has won the case, it remains to be seen if he will still be treated as a pariah by this tightly-knit community. Nonetheless, it is a case that will be remembered for a long time in Kerala.

—India Legal Bureau