On Monday, 20th September, the Supreme Court gave a consumer tribunal order to production house Yash Raj Films. They were directed to pay Rs. 15,000 to a teacher in Maharashtra. This person felt cheated because the song ‘Jabra Fan’ from Shah Rukh Khan starrer Fan was edited out of the film. The bench questioned Yash raj Films about its decision to market the movie with the song but not include it in the film. The Supreme Court said to Yash Raj Films, “The problem is that you (Yash Raj films) show something in the trailer which is not there in the movie. When the trailer is released, it is part of the movie. Why were you marketing your movie with the song when you knew it was meant to be only for promotion?”
A bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and V Ramasubramanium issued notices. Notices were issued to both the Central Board of Film Certification and the complainant. The name of the person who complained was Afreen Fatima Zaidi. She had complained in 2016 that she, along with her family had gone to watch the movie Fan. She did so especially on hearing the song ‘Jabra Fan’. However, they felt cheated when they did not find the track anywhere in the movie. As a result, the complainant approached the concerned District Forum by way of a consumer complaint which sought compensation. At first, the district consumer redressal forum rejected her complaint. But in 2017, the state commission ordered Yash Raj Films to pay Rs. 10,000 along with the litigation cost of Rs. 5000 to Fatima Zaidi. The production house further challenged the decision in National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.
In the meantime, Yash Raj Films has stated that Jabra Fan was shown on TV channels for promotional purposes and the same was disclosed to the audience in the times of press interviews. The advocate representing Yash Raj films was Naomi Chandra. During the Supreme Court hearing, she stated that it was common practice in the industry to use songs in trailers. It does not make it mandatory to be featured in the films themselves. To this, the Supreme Court replied, “If there is a common practice in the industry, that does not mean that the practice should continue.” The report also states that the court observed another thing. The question that was to be decided is if a film owner can be said to be a service provider. It was because the movie ticket was a contract between the cinema hall owner and the person who buys it.