HC sets date for Eklavya’s fate

MUMBAI: The fate of Eklavya — The Royal Guard, India’s official entry to the 80th Oscar Awards, will now be decided by the Bombay High Court.

On Saturday, observing that “prima facie there appears to be a bias in the selection” of Eklavya for the Oscars, the HC issued notices to the Film Federation of India (FFI) and members of its selection committee.

Hearing a petition filed by WSG Pictures and Bhavna Talwar, director of Dharm, which lost out to Eklavya in the Oscar race, Chief Justice Swatanter Kumar and Justice DY Chandrachud ruled that the nomination of Eklavya would be subject to court orders in the case.

Even though the film has already been dispatched to the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences in Los Angeles — before the October 1 deadline for receiving entries lapses — the court clarified that the FFI and the film’s producer cannot claim any equity if the court order goes against them. The petition will be heard on October 10.

The FFI’s decision to send Eklavya, which stars Amitabh Bachchan, Saif Ali Khan and Sanjay Dutt, as India’s official entry for the 2008 Oscars, was announced on September 24.

The decision evoked a mixed reaction from the film industry. The petitioners, who had submitted their socially-relevant film Dharm, starring Pankaj Kapoor and Supriya Pathak, to the FFI were “shocked” to know that their internationally-acclaimed film lost out to Eklavya.

Challenging FFI’s decision, the petition has alleged that some members of the selection committee had a “direct affiliation” with Vidhu Vinod Chopra, Eklavya’s producer and director, and thus the entire selection process was biased, vitiated and intended to wrongfully benefit the producer of the film.

Petitioners’ lawyers Ravi Kadam, Vineet Naik and Amit Naik, filed an additional affidavit on Saturday informing the court that Ranjit Bahadur, a member of FFI’s selection committee, was the editor of Making of Eklavya, a promotional snapshot of the film.

Stating that FFI is a body, which selects films to showcase India’s creativity on an international platform, Kadam said that its selection process must be transparent. The petitioners have also made allegations of personal bias against film-maker Sudhir Mishra.

FFI’s counsel Suneet Sen and Chopra’s lawyer Satish Maneshinde opposed the petition stating that it was not maintainable as the FFI is not a government body. However, CJ Kumar shot down his argument stating, “These days we are interfering in everything. Where is the question of maintainability?”

Stating that the FFI represents the entire country, Justice Chandrachud added, “This case relates to free speech and creativity. Whether the selection was fair and free of bias and arbitrariness is the only consideration before us.”

The judges said, “Any process of selection which appears to be a result of a general or specific boas or arbitrariness can invite judicial review.” The question of maintainability of the petition has been kept open.