Geethika Satti | ILS Pune | 3rd April 2020
CCI v. Co-Ordination Committee of Artists and Technicians of W.B Film and Television and Ors.
Facts of the Case:
M/s BRTV, had produced the TV Serial “Mahabharat”, in Hindi Language and M/s Magnum TV was assigned the sole and exclusive rights of the said serial in Bangla, till September 2016.
Magnum Tv, in turn, appointed M/s Hart Video as the sub- assigner to dub the said serial in “Bangla” language, which was done. An agreement was made with “Channel 10” and “CTVN+ channel, for procuring time slot for telecast of the dubbed version of the serial. In this regard, an advertisement was placed in Daily Newspapers on 19th February, 2011, informing the public that “Mahabharat” would be telecasted on Channel 10 and CTVN+ at 10 p.m. every Sunday.
East India Motion Picture Association (EIMPA) and Committee of Artists and Film Technicians of West Bengal Film and Television Investors (Coordination Committee) are two associations of producers, artists, and film technicians of the West Bengal Film Industry. These two bodies took objection of the telecasting of dubbed serials on Bengali channels, as it would adversely affect the artists and technicians working in West Bengal.
Channel 10 and CTVN+ received letters from EIMPA and Coordination Committee respectively, to stop the telecast of dubbed “Mahabharat”, threatening non-cooperation if the telecast was not stopped. Additionally, the workers who were a part of “Mahabharat” and were members of the Coordination Committee, were made to stop their work for one day, following which protests were held in Kolkata. Also, Mithun Chakraborty, the chief adviser of Channel 10 was approached by Coordination Committee and Channel 10 was forced to stop the Telecast of the said serial.
Consequently, an Information U/S 19 of the Act was filed by Mr Sajjan Khaitan, the proprietor of M/s Hart Video against The EIMPA and the Coordination Committee for contravening the provisions of the Act. The CCI directed the DG to investigate into the matter as it made out a Prima Facie Case.
The DG concluded that the aforementioned activities of EIMPA and the Coordination Committee in the Relevant Market of “Film and Television Industry of West Bengal” were Anti- Competitive and were in the nature of Horizontal Agreements, which were in violation of Section 3(3)(b) of the Competition Act, 2002 (The Act), as their activities resulted in foreclosure of competition by hindering entry into the market. Hel also commented that the agitation of the Coordination Committee was uncalled for, as the Bengali industry was not likely to suffer on account of showcase of dubbed serials.
Coordination Commission objected by stating that it was a “Trade Union” and was not subject to the provisions of the Act. They claimed that Protesting against the telecast was their constitutional right to lodge such protests under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India, to safeguard the interests of its members only.
The Commission had a fractured view:
Majority View: The activities of the Committee and EIMPA had violated section 3, as they caused AAEC. Since they are trade unions, they come under the purview of the Act.
Minority View: according to the Judicial member on board, the “Relevant Market” in the present case should have been “Broadcast of TV Serials”. He also opined that broadcast of serials took place through DTH (Direct to Home) or by Cable, hence, it is different from Production, Exhibition and Distribution of Films. The two affected parties, CTVN+ and Channel 10 were involved in Broadcasting, but the alleged offenders were not active in the Relevant Market, hence, there is no question of such trade Unions involving in economically affecting Anti-Competitive Activity. Also, the Coordination Committee and other Opposite Parties have the right to hold dharnas and strikes under Article 19(1)(a), as they are Trade Unions.
The EIMPA had accepted the decision of the CCI, but the Coordination Committee appealed to COMPAT.
COMPAT looked into the merits of the case only pertaining to the Coordination Committee and upheld the Minority decision of CCI that the impugned activities are not violative of Section 3 of the Act.
Issues Raised:
(i) What is the ‘relevant market’ for the purposes of inquiry into the impugned activity of the Coordination Committee? and
(ii) Whether the action and conduct of the Coordination Committee is covered by the provisions of Section 3 of the Act?
Issue 1:
The Relevant market was accepted to be “Film and Television Industry of West Bengal” because, The effect is not limited to the telecast or broadcast of the television serial , and even as per the Opposite Parties the alleged purport behind the threats was to “save the entire TV and Film industry”.
Issue 2:
The Coordination Committee and EIMPA are not just trade unions, they are associations of enterprises and members of these organizations engage in production, distribution and exhibition of films. It was held that the members acted in a concerted and coordinated manner to give a call of boycott to competing members, economically damaging them.
The “Trade Union” took decisions which affected the production, distribution and/or exhibition line, on the behalf of “Enterprises”, who were its members. For this reason, the court held that the argument related to the rights of trade unions to protest, under Article 19 of the Constitution, is not available to them.
Hence, the appeal of CCI was allowed, and it was held that activities of Coordination Committee were violative of Section 3(3)(b) of the Act.
Leave a Reply