Was Ranveer Singh right to serve legal notice on FWICE? What industry, lawyers say

The Federation of Western India Cine Employees (FWICE) has withdrawn its non-cooperation directive against Ranveer Singh after the actor issued a legal notice against the film body. As Don 3 impasse heats up, lawyers and a veteran industry voice weigh in.

In Short

• FWICE withdraws its non-cooperative directive against Ranveer Singh
• Directive follows Farhan Akhtar's complaint that Singh had walked out of Don 3
• Following FWICE directive, Ranveer Singh served legal notice to the film body

The Federation of Western India Cine Employees (FWICE) on Wednesday withdrew its non-cooperation directive against actor Ranveer Singh. “We will respond to the legal notice in a legal way,” the film body said.

“We are still making an appeal to Ranveer Singh. We invite him to sit with us to solve the matter amicably and save the interest of the industry,” the FWICE statement added.

Here's the FWICE notice announcing the withdrawal of the non-cooperation directive against Ranveer Singh:

The FWICE withdrawal follows a legal notice Ranveer Singh issued against the film body on Tuesday, over a directive asking its five lakh-odd members to boycott working with Singh. The FWICE directive had followed filmmaker Farhan Akhtar's complaint that the actor walked out of his project Don 3 days before shooting was to begin, leading to losses.

Don 3 'action' has clearly started long before a single shot has been filmed, but there's always a twist in all things Bollywood. What began as a conflict between Singh and the Don 3 production house Excel Entertainment, co-owned by Akhtar and Ritesh Sidhwani, has suddenly morphed into a full-blown war between Singh and the FWICE. The actor's legal notice officially seals that fact.

While FWICE's non-cooperation directive on the actor has been lifted, Singh's legal notice against the film body stays, at the time of writing. FWICE Chief Advisor Ashoke Pandit on Wednesday confirmed receiving the notice to India Today. The content of the notice, however, has not been disclosed. The film body will reportedly reveal details in a press conference later today in Mumbai.

Discuss to solve matter, feels Bollywood

Meanwhile, Bollywood feels the solution for such disagreements lies in discussions, as court cases in India take years to be solved. "They (Ranveer Singh and Excel) should sit down and talk. They need to arrive at a mutually agreeable solution internally. Ranveer also needs to realise that Excel is a reputed production house. Asking for too many changes in script and locations after everything is planned is avoidable," says veteran filmmaker Kuku Kohli, who directed Ajay Devgn in Phool Aur Kaante (1991), Govinda in Anari No.1 (1999) and the 2002 sleeper hit, Yeh Dil Aashiqanaa, starring Karan Nath and Jividha Sharma. Kohli is associated with the Indian Motion Picture Producers' Association (IMPPA) as General Secretary.

Kohli adds that if Ranveer's change in attitude is an outcome of his Dhurandhar films becoming blockbusters – as many have been saying – then it is wrong.

Will Ranveer's legal notice escalate tiff?

But what are the legal connotations of Ranveer Singh's notice? We asked representatives of the lawyer community to shed light on what the fallout of Singh's action could be.

"If a person believes an industry body's action is affecting their ability to work, approaching the court is a legitimate and lawful remedy. Contractual disputes and the non-cooperation directive are separate legal issues," says lawyer Avadhi Joshi.

Joshi, however, agrees with Bollywood on one count: It makes commercial sense for both parties to sit down and sort issues. "Commercially, settlements are usually faster and less disruptive. Even after a legal notice, there is still scope for discussions and an amicable resolution," says Joshi, a Founding Partner at Minara Legal.

"Producers face significant risks from litigation delays," says lawyer Alay Razvi, pointing at a precedent by the Competition Commission of India (CCI), the chief competition regulator in India. Razvi, Managing Partner at Accord Juris, says the CCI precedent "found that FWICE's non-cooperation directives amount to anti-competitive conduct under Section 3 of the Competition Act, 2002."

Razvi adds: "With 34 vendor associations under FWICE, the directive can seriously disrupt film shoots and production schedules. Producers of Ranveer's upcoming projects may face delays, increased costs, and difficulty hiring crew, as affiliated workers may refuse collaboration despite the directive lacking legal enforceability. The 40 crore compensation claim from Don 3 also remains unresolved, creating financial uncertainty."

Was FWICE directive legal?

Which brings a significant issue to the fore: Was the FWICE non-cooperation directive a clear case of infringement on an individual's right to earn a livelihood? Was it legitimate in the first place?

"The directive potentially violates Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution (right to practice any profession/trade) for both Ranveer and workers who wish to employ him," says Razvi.

He questions the authority of FWICE to issue a non-cooperation directive. "FWICE is a trade union, not a regulatory authority, and lacks jurisdiction over contractual disputes between actors and producers. The non-cooperation directive stems from his exit from Don 3, a contractual matter between him and Farhan Akhtar's production which FWICE cannot legally adjudicate," says Razvi.

"Indian courts have previously examined industry boycotts that overstep lawful boundaries, and an actor can challenge directives that unlawfully interfere with their right to work or amount to coercive blacklisting," Razvi argues, pointing at veteran film producer TP Aggarwal's recent move challenging the FWICE non-cooperation directive against Ranveer Singh.

"FWICE's non-cooperation directive is not legally legitimate and likely infringes on fundamental rights," Razvi further says, adding: "While FWICE can advise members not to work with Ranveer, members can ignore this without penalty — it's not a binding ban.

For Joshi, the legitimacy of the FWICE directive is the "core legal question", liable to judicial scrutiny. "While associations can represent member interests, any action that effectively restricts a person's ability to work may face judicial scrutiny, as an interference with the right to practice a profession and earn a livelihood." says Joshi.

Out-of-court talks ideal: Lawyers

The legal community feels an out-of-court settlement over the Don 3 impasse would be ideal, all things considered, the legal community feels. "Prolonged disputes can create uncertainty, delay projects, and impact commercial planning," says Joshi, adding: Courts, however, may grant interim relief much earlier than the final decision.

"With both parties standing firm after multiple discussion rounds (of talks), the deadlock persisted, making court intervention necessary. Even now, out-of-court settlement remains possible — Indian courts typically encourage mediation in civil disputes, and both sides can still negotiate settlement terms during litigation. However, the chances have diminished with Singh escalating (the conflict) by sending a legal notice to FWICE, and the matter has now become public with both sides preparing media responses," sums up Razvi.

With so much pre-release publicity generated by the legal tussle, Farhan Akhtar might as well not set aside a trailer budget before Don 3 releases. Of course, he needs to get his Don back in front of the camera first.

- Ends