Swati Deshpande (THE TIMES OF INDIA; September 11, 2020)

Mumbai: Mumbai’s civic authorities have denied any hidden motives in carrying out demolitions inside actor Kangana Ranaut’s bungalow in Bandra (W), while responding to a petition before the Bombay High Court which has led to a stay on the work.

Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) on Thursday said the actor’s plea seeking relief constituted “an abuse of process” as she “has unlawfully made substantial alterations and additions… contrary to the sanctioned building plan”.

The nine-page affidavit filed by BMC’s H-West ward officer said the illegal constructions include “new toilets… conversion of existing toilets in to cabins, construction of pantry, kitchen cabins, etc”.

“Both in her advocate’s reply dated September 8 and even in the petition, she has not disputed carrying out the unlawful alterations and addition,’’ the BMC said, adding she made “baseless and unwarranted allegations” to seek protection for “unlawful work”.

By a notice issued on September 8, the actor was required to produce permission for such work within 24 hours, failing which they would be removed “without further notice”, BMC said. Explaining the sequence of events, BMC’s counsel said, “substantial part of illegal work…was demolished by the time intimation was received that the HC has directed stay of the demolition”.

While staying the demolition on Wednesday, the bench of Justices S J Kathawalla and Riyaz Chagla had said the manner in which the BMC proceeded with the demolition “prima facie... smacks of mala fide” and it gave BMC time to explain its conduct on affidavit by 3pm, Thursday.

Senior counsel Aspi Chinoy appearing with Anil Sakhare and Joel Carlos for BMC denied any “mala fides” and said “work which is clearly in contravention of sanctioned plan has been done with complete abandon. Even in the current petition there is not even an assertion that it is not unlawful”.

To this, Justice S J Kathawalla said the petition was filed “in haste” by Kangana’s counsel Rizwan Siddiquee and he had sought time to file a rejoinder to amend it. Siddiquee said he could only meet the actor after 6.30pm on Wednesday. He added that he would amend the petition by Monday.

Chinoy sought 3-4 days for BMC to then respond. HC said BMC would have to file a reply by September 17. The hearing is now scheduled for September 22. Meantime, the stay order passed by the HC “shall continue to be in force”.

Chinoy said there should be a “status quo” in the interim period and Kangana should not be allowed change anything as it was an office space. Siddiquee responded saying it was a residential premise and a househelp stays there. “There is no electricity and water,” he said. However, the bench did not issue any directions in this regard.

Kangana had claimed the demolitions were “a fallout over the difference of opinion with certain influential people operating in the administration and the Maharashtra government”.
----------------------
Civic body tells HC that hearing before demolition is not a matter of right
Sharmeen Hakim (MUMBAI MIRROR; September 11, 2020)

In an affidavit submitted before the Bombay High Court on Thursday, the BMC said all rules were followed before it undertook demolition of parts of actor Kangana Ranaut’s bungalow-office on Pali Hill on September 9, and that it was not even her claim that the demolished structure was legal.

The affidavit, stating that due process was followed for the demolition, has been filed by designated officer Bhagyavant Late from H-West ward. Officer Late passed the demolition order and has denied that the actor was entitled to a personal hearing as claimed by her.

The affidavit states that in her reply to the notice, Ranaut’s lawyer made “incorrect and baseless allegations of house trespass and criminal intimidation, but did not dispute that alterations and additions were contrary to the sanctioned plan and sought seven days to respond”.

A division bench of Justices S J Kathawalla and Riyaz Chagla, that had made scathing remarks against the BMC while ordering a stay on Wednesday, accepted the BMC’s affidavit. The bench allowed the actor’s lawyer Rizwan Siddquee to make amendments to the development of demolition and allow the civic body to respond to it.

Senior Counsel Aspi Chinoy, along with advocate Joel Carlos, appearing on behalf of the BMC, defended the BMC’s action. They said there is no assertion from Ranaut’s side that the work was as per the sanctioned plan, while Siddiquee argued that he wants to put on record all communication with the BMC in the past two years.

The court refused to comment on Siddiquee’s plea to restore electricity and water supply, and on Chinoy’s request to maintain status quo as the demolition is not fully complete.

The case is adjourned to September 22. 

Stops Action, Says It ‘Smacks Of Mala Fide’
Swati Deshpande & Vijay V Singh | TNN (THE TIMES OF INDIA; September 10, 2020)

Mumbai: Observing that the conduct of the BMC, which carried out demolition of allegedly unauthorised constructions at actor Kangana Ranaut’s bungalow in Pali Hill, Bandra, on Wednesday, was “highly deplorable”, the Bombay High Court in a scathing order directed the municipal body to immediately stop the demolition.

The HC bench of Justices S J Kathawalla and Riyaz Chagla said that “though the manner in which the BMC proceeded to commence the demolition prima facie...smacks of mala fide...it was giving an opportunity to the corporation to explain its conduct on affidavit by 3pm on Thursday”.

The order came at an urgent hearing within hours of a civic squad launching the demolition. The BMC, controlled by the Shiv Sena which is part of the ruling Maha Vikas Aghadi alliance in the state, had despatched a squad with heavy machinery to her place in the morning and flattened portions of the rowhouse. Kangana, who was vacationing in her hometown in Himachal Pradesh, landed in the city a few hours after the BMC’s action began.

Before she reached Mumbai, Kangana, through her lawyer Rizwan Siddiquee, had approached the HC to prevent the “illegal, arbitrary and mala fide” demolition, which she claimed was “a fallout over the difference of opinion with certain influential people operating in the civic administration and the Maharashtra government”. The actor sought directions to quash the BMC’s stop-work notice issued on Tuesday.

The HC found fault with the BMC’s conduct, “more so” since it had filed a caveat expecting her petition. The bench informed senior counsel Anil Sakhare that “such conduct... is totally unacceptable”.

The HC bench said, “It is clear that the unauthorised works have not come up overnight. However, all of a sudden, the corporation appears to have woken up from its slumber, issued notice to the petitioner... when she is out of the state, directing her to respond within 24 hours, and not granting her any further time despite written request, and proceeding to demolish…on completion of 24 hours.”

The HC added, “We cannot help but mention here that if the BMC would act with similar swiftness on the numerous unauthorised constructions in this city, it (the city) would be a completely different place to live in.”

When the matter was called out at 12.30 pm, initially no lawyer appeared for the BMC, and Siddiquee said by then, 40% of the premises was razed. The BMC’s in-house lawyer then said they did not have the petition copy and no officer was present with her. The HC took the view that the BMC was “trying to waste the court’s time and in the meantime, complete the demolition”. It then orally instructed the BMC lawyer to immediately convey its direction to the civic chief to stop demolition.

The corporation had sent Ranaut a 24-hour notice on Tuesday, warning of action for alterations made on the ground and first floors of the structure. The BMC has also targeted the actor’s apartment in Khar.

‘Condition Is Discriminatory, Arbitrary, Violates Right to Dignity’
Rosy Sequeira (THE TIMES OF INDIA; August 8, 2020)

Mumbai: In a relief for film and television cast and crew aged over 65 years, the Bombay High Court on Friday struck down a condition in two state government circulars that barred them from shoots. The court observed the condition is discriminatory, arbitrary and violates their right to live with dignity.

“Having permitted the film industry to operate and open, subject to conditions, the introduction of the impugned condition that places absolute restriction on persons above the age of 65 years from carrying out their occupation or trade, whilst not similarly restricting persons of the same age who are engaged in other trades or occupations permitted to operate and open, would amount to an unreasonable restriction and hence a violation of their right under Article 19 (1) (g) (right to practice any profession) of the Constitution,” said a bench of Justice Shahrukh Kathawalla and Justice Riyaz Chagla.

The judges quashed and set aside the condition in the May 31 and June 23 government resolutions (GR) to restart the media entertainment industry as part of ‘Mission Begin Again’. It stated that “any cast/crew member above the age of 65 years will not be allowed at the site”.

The verdict was delivered on petitions by artiste Pramod Pandey and Indian Motion Pictures Producers Association, both represented by advocate Ashok Saraogi.

The judges held there is discrimination in the disparate treatment of persons who are aged 65 years or above in the film and TV industry and in the other permitted sectors and activities.

They further said the condition failed to consider relevant material—relaxation in the ministry of home affairs (MHA)’s May 30 order and the state government’s May 31 order. The state’s reply had said the condition is based on these two orders that require persons aged 65 years and above to stay home, except for essential or medical purposes.

The judges agreed with amicus curiae senior advocate Sharan Jagtiani that unlike the mandatory nature of guidelines issued in the previous lockdown phases, MHA’s May 30 order was advisory.

While the MHA order had contained relaxations, there was no corresponding easing with regard to film and television in the state’s May 31 GR. This aspect was not considered by the state, especially in addressing clarifications in the June 23 GR. Rather, in its July 25 reply to the court, it stated if the Centre relaxes this condition, it will issue a similar relaxation.

The judges noted having concluded the condition is discriminatory and arbitrary, they are satisfied that absolute prohibition violates the petitioners’ right to live with dignity under Article 21 (right to life).

They mentioned government pleader Poornima Kantharia’s submission that no coercive will be taken against those above 65 years who choose to remain present on sets.
--------------------------
Court sets aside conditions in two government resolutions that bar cast and crew above 65 from shoots
Sharmeen Hakim (MUMBAI MIRROR; August 8, 2020)

Observing that there is “discrimination” in the treatment of people above 65 years in film and TV industry, the Bombay High Court has set aside conditions in two government resolutions that bar cast and crew above 65 from participating in shoots.

The ruling will come as a boost to senior citizens in the entertainment industry, who were barred from earning a livelihood due to the state government’s restrictions, issued on May 31 and June 23. The government orders were challenged by a 70-year-old actor named Pramod Pandey.

A division bench comprising justices Sharukh Kathawalla and Riyaz Chagla held that the decisions to bar those above 65 from the entertainment industry, while allowing them to take part in other day-to-day activities—taking public buses, going to offices, etc—were against Article 14 of the Constitution, especially since they failed to provide a solid reason for the discrimination.

The state claimed that its guidelines were based on central government directives.

However, the bench relied on the submissions of the amicus curiae, senior advocate Sharan Jagtiani, to say that central and state government orders dated May 30 and 31 relaxed their general conditions, making restrictions on those above 65 years advisory in nature.

“In our view, there is discrimination in the disparate treatment of persons who are 65 years of age or above in the film or television industry and in the other permitted sectors and activities. The same is not based on any intelligible differentia and no explanation to this effect is to be found in the reply of the state government. The impugned condition, therefore, cannot be sustained in view of the well-settled principles enunciated under Article 14 of the Constitution of India,” the bench said.

The bench further said that for a restriction to be reasonable under Article 19 of the Constitution, material would be required to support the distinction.

“Having come to the conclusion that the impugned condition cannot be sustained on account of it being discriminatory and arbitrary, we are satisfied that the absolute prohibition as regards persons above the age of 65 years who earn their livelihood from the film industry (which is allowed to operate), is a measure that violates the petitioner’s right to live with dignity under Article 21 (right to life) of the Constitution. And the restriction imposed by the impugned condition in relation to a specific sector or industry that is now allowed to operate, cannot constitute a valid procedure established by law,” the bench held.

The court, however, said that general advisories recommending all those people above 65 years not to venture out for their own good would apply to cast and crew of the film industry as well.

Actor Pandey, represented by advocate Ashok Saraogi, had said that the state government’s decision had brought people like him to the brink of starvation.

The government, represented by pleader Poornima Kantharia, however, said that the guidelines were issued for the benefit of those above 65.
--------------------------
With their productions starring veterans, filmmakers cheer as HC revokes state government guideline banning artistes over 65 on set
Upala KBR (MID-DAY; August 8, 2020)

The state government's regulation that barred actors and technicians over 65 years of age from shooting, as a precautionary measure amid the Coronavirus pandemic, had come under heavy fire from some stalwarts of the industry. On Friday, the Bombay High Court dismissed the regulation after a petition was filed by the Indian Motion Pictures Producers' Association (IMPPA) and senior Bollywood actor Pramod Pandey.

The move comes as a relief to several filmmakers, including Nikkhil Advani, who has envisioned his next, Mughal, with Shabana Azmi as one of the leads. "We are thrilled as several of our productions were being spearheaded by some superlative senior talent. Kanwaljit Singh [69] features in my production that is being directed by Kaashvie Nair. Fortunately, we can now have him on set when the shoot begins by the month-end," says Advani.

Priyadarshan, whose in-the-works Hungama 2 features senior talent, observes that the regulation would have hindered the industry that has veterans Amitabh Bachchan, Naseeruddin Shah and Azmi, among others, at the top of their game. "If these stars couldn't work till the situation improved, it would have resulted in huge losses for the producers," he says.

Out-of-work background artiste Ayub Khan has been forced to sell vegetables in Bandra’s Behrampada. (Below) Mirror’s July 10 report on senior artistes questioning the government order

Court asks if state will take care of those rendered unemployed and show data to support age cut-off
Sharmeen Hakim (MUMBAI MIRROR; July 22, 2020)

The entertainment industry’s artistes have the Bombay High Court in their corner. The court has asked the state government, which allowed film and TV shoots to resume through its orders issued on May 30 and June 23 but barred cast and crew members aged above 65 from turning up at the locations owing to the Coronavirus pandemic, if it will take on responsibility of feeding all those affected by its diktat.

“There is a commissioner (BMC chief Iqbal Singh Chahal) who says everything is fine in Mumbai... If they (artistes) cannot earn their daily bread, what are they supposed to do? Will the state feed all of them?” it asked, after taking up a petition filed against the government order by actor and writer Pramod Pandey, who has worked in the film industry for over 40 years.

Chahal had last week said the pandemic is close to “bottoming out” in Mumbai, suggesting that the worst is over.

Questioning the reasoning behind the government’s decision to bar senior citizens from film shoots, a division bench of justices S J Kathawalla and Riyaz Chagla on Monday asked if a similar age cut-off has been placed on those taking buses, trains and flights, and attending weddings and funerals.

The state has been directed to file a detailed affidavit by Friday, explaining how a “physically fit person who is 65 years or above is expected to live a dignified life if he is not allowed to go out and earn his livelihood”. The court also asked it if any data/ report was used to draw up the age restriction order. While senior citizens with co-morbidities are considered a vulnerable group, SARS-COV-2 can strike even young, healthy people.

Mirror had on July 10 reported that senior artistes had questioned the age cap and wondered how one’s physical fitness could be determined without examining him/her. In his petition, filed through lawyer Ashok Saraogi, Pandey said a number of India’s top administrators are aged above 65 but have not been told to stay put at home. Asserting that the entertainment industry is many artistes’ only source of income, he alleged that the government order took away their right to work and live, and left them on the brink of starvation.

The state, represented by government pleader Purnima Kantharia, disputed this claim, saying its guideline provides for casting to be done remotely via video chat apps like Facetime, Zoom or Skype. The bench scoffed at this suggestion, pointing out that “actors performing small roles are required to go to the studios” and that no producer or director would allow the provision of shooting via video calls.

DNA (October 21, 2018)

On Friday evening, the second hearing of the Rs 10 crore defamation case filed by Vikas Bahl against Anurag Kashyap and Vikramaditya Motwane was heard in the Bombay High Court. In the earlier hearing on Wednesday, Justice S J Kathawalla, who is presiding over the case, had passed a directive that the girl, who was allegedly sexually harassed by Bahl, should be made a respondent. However, now she has stated that she doesn’t want to file a complaint against the filmmaker.

She has been quoted saying in her statement: “I have had enough and I am still suffering at the hands of this man even after three years. I do not want to be involved in litigation, so I’ll not file an affidavit. I’ll only put out a statement.” At the same time, her lawyer, Senior Counsel Navroz Seervai told the court that his client stood by the statements she had made against Bahl in the media.

Slamming Kashyap and Motwane for not being able to present a witness, the court stated that the #MeToo Movement can’t be misused by anybody to make allegations of sexual harassment.

During the hearing, Justice Kathawalla also said a committee comprising men and women should be set up to look into such matters. The next hearing has been scheduled for October 23.

John Abraham’s upcoming film Parmanu has several stake holders, and the High Court has asked all parties involved to find a solution before May 10. Or else, the court will intervene on the terms of release
Rachana Dubey (BOMBAY TIMES; May 9, 2018)

John Abraham’s JA Entertainment and Prernaa Arora’s KriArj Entertainment have been engaged in a financial and legal tussle over Parmanu: The Story of Pokhran for the past few months and the latest development in the case took place on Monday. Producer Prernaa Arora, her mother and KriArj Entertainment’s director Protima Arora and Arjun N Kapoor were present for the hearing along with legal representatives from nearly all parties involved. The case that was heard first was KriArj Entertainment V/s JA Entertainment, because it pertains to the film Parmanu: The Story of Pokhran, starring John Abraham, which is slated to release on May 25. Five other cases were to be heard by Justice Kathawalla in the Bombay High Court involving KriArj Entertainment (Gothic Entertainment V/s Kri-Arj Entertainment, Padma Ispat V/s KriArj Entertainment, Padma Ispat V/s KriArj Entertainment, three others and Guy In The Sky Productions, Gothic Entertainment V/s KriArj Entertainment, 14 others and Guy In The Sky Productions and Padma Ispat V/s KriArj Entertainment and three others).

BT was present at the hearing that went on for about two hours. Since Parmanu urgently needed clarity on its release plan, the court decided to speed up the case. The High Court has asked the parties involved to either find a solution agreeable to all parties before May 10 or the court will intervene on the terms of release and the cost of P&A (Prints and Advertising) among other things. The hearing to be held on May 10 is considered extremely crucial for all the parties involved.

The Judge brought up the consent terms that KriArj Entertainment had signed on April 20, 2018, for clearing pending dues and spending on the P&A of the film — spending Rs 7.5 crore by mid-May and depositing Rs 2.5 crore in an escrow account. Given that she had defaulted on the dates of payment and on other grounds, the matter was brought back to the High Court on May 2 and extensively heard on May 4.

One of the suggestions that Justice Kathawalla made on Monday was that after Parmanu releases, the court will sort out the monetary distribution of the film’s earnings — i.e. which production house will recoup their funds first and in what proportion. “There is no clear resolution in sight right now,” says a source close to Zee Studios, who are one of the parties involved in the Consent Terms. The source also adds, “The lawyers from Pooja Entertainment, Zee Studios and JA Entertainment were discussing a mutually agreeable solution to release the film on May 25. The discussion went on for more than an hour after the hearing.”