 |
|
The Directorate of Enforcement (ED) has taken significant action against renowned Tamil film director S. Shankar, provisionally attaching three of his immovable properties valued at approximately Rs 10.11 crore. This action stems from a protracted legal battle surrounding allegations of plagiarism related to Shankar's blockbuster film, Enthiran (Robot). The case highlights the complexities of copyright infringement in the Indian film industry and the far-reaching consequences under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). The initial complaint was filed in 2011 by Tamil writer Aarur Tamilnadan, who claimed that Shankar's Enthiran plagiarized his short story, Jiguba. This complaint, initially filed under the Copyright Act, 1957, and the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860, has now resulted in the ED's involvement under PMLA due to the substantial financial implications of the alleged copyright infringement.
The ED's investigation involved a thorough examination of the similarities between Tamilnadan's Jiguba and the narrative of Enthiran. An independent report commissioned from the Film and Television Institute of India (FTII) played a crucial role in determining the extent of the alleged similarities. The FTII report analyzed key aspects such as narrative structure, character development, and thematic elements, concluding that there were striking similarities between the two works, lending credence to Tamilnadan's claims of plagiarism. This finding established a crucial link between the alleged copyright violation and the financial gains obtained from the film's massive success. Enthiran, starring Rajinikanth and Aishwarya Rai, grossed Rs 290 crore worldwide, showcasing the significant financial stakes involved in this legal dispute. The substantial remuneration received by Shankar for his work on Enthiran, including story development, screenplay, dialogues, and direction (Rs 11.5 crore), further amplified the financial implications of the alleged copyright infringement.
The case progressed through the Indian legal system, encountering various challenges and legal maneuvers. Shankar's repeated failure to appear in court resulted in the issuance of a non-bailable warrant (NBW) by the Metropolitan Magistrate Court-II, Egmore. This highlights the seriousness with which the court viewed the allegations and Shankar's response to the legal proceedings. Further complicating the matter is the fact that Tamilnadan's original short story, Jiguba, was published in 1996, and later republished as a novel in 2007, long before the release of Enthiran in 2010. This timeline raises questions about the awareness and understanding of intellectual property rights within the film industry and the potential for exploitation of original works. The Supreme Court's dismissal of Tamilnadan's petition last year, which challenged a Madras High Court order, does not negate the ED's findings, highlighting the different legal avenues and jurisdictions involved in this complex case.
The ED's actions are based on the conclusion that S. Shankar violated Section 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957, a crime now classified as a scheduled offence under the PMLA, 2002. This classification underscores the severity of the alleged crime and its implications under anti-money laundering laws. The provisional attachment of Shankar's properties indicates the ED's belief that the funds used to acquire these assets are linked to the proceeds of the alleged crime. This aspect adds another layer of complexity to the case, connecting the copyright infringement directly to the financial activities and assets of the director. The ongoing investigations by the ED suggest that further developments are expected, potentially leading to more significant legal ramifications for Shankar. The case serves as a reminder of the increasing scrutiny surrounding intellectual property rights and the potential for legal repercussions when such rights are violated, particularly when significant financial gains are involved.
Source: ED Attaches Properties Of Tamil Director S. Shankar In Connection With Money Laundering Case