'Throws Integrity Of Art To The Wolves': Orissa High Court Quashes List Of State Film Awardees Over Plagiarism & Uncredited Remakes

A Single Judge Bench of Dr. Justice Sanjeeb Kumar Panigrahi, after verifying the allegations, discovered the movies to be plagiarised and copied from films of other languages and thus, observed:

“After ocular verification of the films, it appears that the two films, i.e., “KHUSI” & “GOLMAL LOVE” are heavily inspired from the alleged non-Odia films at least. Considering a comparison of the impugned films with the plot and scenes in the Korean film ‘HOPE’ and Punjabi film “CARRY ON JATTA”, it is clear that from the plethora of facts, circumstances and stated overlap that the impugned motion films are uncredited remakes of the aforementioned non-Odia films.”

Brief Facts

An advertisement was notified on the website of the Department of Odia Culture inviting applications for 31^st Odisha State Film Awards, 2019 against 27 categories and 8th Odisha State Tele Awards, 2019 against 20 categories by 20.02.2021. Applications were accordingly submitted for the aforesaid categories and after due verification by jury, the final list of awardees was published.

However, upon seeing the award list, the petitioner found various irregularities in the awards announced in 27 categories which were in apparent violation of Odisha State Film Award Rules, 2010. He alleged that many of the films that featured in the final award list were remakes of some films made in other languages, which should not have qualified for the nomination itself for lack of originality. Thus, he filed this writ petition challenging the same.

Contentions of the Petitioner

B.S. Sahoo, counsel for the petitioner contended that the terms and conditions mentioned in the aforesaid advertisement clearly requires that only the ‘original’ films/ serials/ telefilms made in Odia Language or Odia Tribal language will be considered for awards. It was also pointed out that Clause 3(b) of the Odisha State Film Award Rules, 2010 provides that the dubbed/ revised/ copied/ remake versions of films are ineligible for entry.

However, it was alleged that in the impugned selection, the film "KHUSI", which was selected for awards in 5 categories, is a remake of a Korean film "HOPE" and the film "GOLMAL LOVE" is also plagiarized from a Punjabi film "CARRY ON JATTA". It was also argued that the awards given to films "KHUSI" and "GOLMAL LOVE" are also in violation of provisions of Copyright Act as the those are heavily plagiarized.

Contentions of the Respondents

Sailaza Nandan Das, Additional Standing Counsel for the State submitted that no rules have been violated in the selection of the awardees. It was also submitted that the jury didn’t know about the allegations of the petitioner against the film “KHUSI” and “GOLMAL LOVE”. In the course of the re-evaluation, as ordered by the Court, the jury took note of the fact that the nominations were supported by affidavits that the films were original.

It was further submitted that the jury was satisfied with the content of the presentation and were not influenced by extraneous considerations. So, he argued, to level the allegation of plagiarism is in ‘poor taste’ and is without any basis. Further, he underlines that the applicants for entry of films 'KHUSI' and 'GOLMAL LOVE' to Odisha State Film Awards, 2019 had clearly mentioned in the entry forms that these two films are not dubbed version or an adaptation or remake of film made in any other language.

Above all, it was argued that no award was given to the impugned films in the categories of story, screenplay or direction where plagiarized content could have been an issue. He pointed out that individual artists of both the films in five other categories were adjudged as the best in comparison to others in their respective fields and therefore, they cannot be denied of their merits.

Court’s Observations

After considering the contentions made by both the sides, Justice Panigrahi deemed it proper to watch the disputed movies himself. After watching the same, he constrained to note that both the movies, i.e. ‘KHUSHI’ and ‘GOLMAL LOVE’ were actually copied from Korean and Punjabi movies respectively. He expressed his deep disappointment over the manner of selection of these movies for the prestigious awards.

“The manner in which the impugned films were considered and declared the winners of the prestigious Odia State Cine Awards is a matter of great embarrassment and concern for the Odia cinema and artiste community.”

Further, he made multiple serious observations about plagiarism and uncredited remakes in the film-industry.

“Throwing Integrity Of Art To Wolves”

The Court disapproved the urge of filmmakers to effortlessly copy the existing concepts and to make easy money. It observed:

“All kinds of art in the world are fundamentally fuelled by inspiration. It keeps ingenious minds active. Many people are inspired by the creations or ideas of others. However, such obvious copying of concepts, as in this case, gives a terrible perception of the art community as a whole. There seems to be a running trend of reproducing an already existing works to mint quick money. This thirst of quick fame and money might be beneficial for an individual but it throws the integrity of the art to the wolves.”

Negative Perception For Odia Movies

Justice Panigrahi flagged a very serious concern regarding originality of Odia movies. He highlighted the growing dissatisfaction among the audience for the industry, which was once placed at a very high pedestal in the cine-world.

“The audience should also not to be taken for granted. After watching a movie, the crowd searches the internet to validate their concerns because they are essentially convinced that no film produced in Odia can be original. This is even more worrisome because it represents a significant decline in audience appreciation and sensitivity for the arts. This perception can spell disaster for the Odia cine industry.”

Regulation Of Plagiarism In Films

The Court called for a system of checks and balances in the Odia cinema sector to minimize such unfortunate instances of cine-plagiarism. It also encouraged the industry to come forward with a ‘self-regulatory framework’ to deal with unfair copying.

“Plagiarism in the film business is made to go unpunished and unregulated by the heedlessness and lack of standards against such practices. In fact, due to lack of regulation and significant costs of litigation, the majority of dissatisfied creators choose not to pursue legal action. A strict system of checks and balances must be implemented in order to support and encourage the triumph of originality in the Odia cine tradition. Even the film business should develop a self-regulatory framework to deal with plagiarism, educate people about it, and punish guilty creators.”

Sacred Duty Of The Jury

Justice Panigrahi expressed his consternation over the manner in which the aforesaid movies were selected by the jury. He said that ‘duty of judgement’ is a sacred one. Therefore, the jury, which is at the helm of affairs should demonstrate courtesy, open-mindedness, courage, understanding, compassion, humility, and common sense while judging. He further stated:

“The Jury should be mindful that their duty is the application of standards of highest quality to the matters of consideration, that the state is an institution of law and not of men. The jury should fulfil their duty with a due regard to the integrity of the system of the law and integrity of arts, remembering that he/she is not a depositary of arbitrary power, but a judge with the responsibility to uphold the integrity of themselves as well as the institution. The irregularities as seen in this case could easily have been avoided had the jury been a little more vigilant and mindful of their position of great responsibility. The jury members are great stalwarts of Odia cinema and nothing but the highest standards of integrity and vision is expected of them. I firmly believe that the jury would be impartial and truthful in their approach and strive to represent a vision of evolutionary creativity that is espoused in the industry.”

Accordingly, the Court concluded that the impugned award list should be ‘trashed’ and a fresh list must be made, in consonance with the Rules governing the activity. It also directed to eliminate those two movies from all categories of awards.

Case Title: Bobby Islam v. State of Odisha & Ors.

Case No: W.P.(C) No. 38227 of 2021

Judgment Dated: 11^th January 2023

Coram: Dr. S.K. Panigrahi, J.

Counsel for the Petitioner: Ms. B.S. Sahoo, Advocate

Counsel for the Respondents: Mr. Sailaza Nandan Das, Additional Standing Counsel

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 11