Children who work in films and TV shows need to be protected

The law is clear on the rights of children working in the entertainment industry, but proper and strict implementation is what is needed.

A recent tweet by film director Shoojit Sircar expressing his concern and sensitivity for children engaged in the entertainment industry and demanding an urgent ban on all reality shows involving children has gone viral. In the past we have seen another filmmaker, Amole Gupte, known for his immensely popular film Stanley ka Dabba, structuring the shooting time in accordance with the child actor’s school schedule. It is indeed commendable for people like Sircar and Gupte to voice their concerns and be sensitive about children on the sets. When concerned individuals come together as champions of child rights, it paves way for finding solutions that can be suggested to authorities and ensure that existing rules are adhered to till better provisions are made.

If we look at the legal framework related to this issue, the recent amendments to the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act 1986 puts a blanket ban on all children in all occupations with exceptions of her/him helping the family (other than hazardous occupations and processes) after school hours and vacations and child artists in the audio-visual entertainment industry. This means that legally, it is allowed for children to work in television and the audio-visual entertainment industry.

The Amended Act defines child artists as children who perform or practise any work as a hobby or profession directly involving him as an actor, singer, sportsperson or in such other actively related to the area of entertainment or sports. While the law recognises the work by child artists and also the need to regulate it, the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Amendments define certain minimal safeguards only.

Besides the legal framework, we also have National Commission for Protection of Child Rights guidelines released in 2010-11 (Guidelines to regulate Child Participation in TV Serials, Reality Shows and Advertisements) that attempt to safeguard children.

School education must not stop

The recent amendment to the Child Labour rules mandates the producer of any production house or any commercial event to seek the District Magistrate’s permission before involving children. The producer, according to the rules, would have to submit an undertaking to the District Magistrate along with the list of child participants’ names, consent of parents or guardian and details of the person responsible and accountable for the safety and security of the child. It is also mandatory for the production house to appoint one responsible person for every five children to ensure the protection, care and best interest of the child.

The undertaking to the District Magistrate shall have to clearly state the provisions for the child actor’s education, safety, security and reporting of child; timely nutritional diet; safe, clean shelter; and compliance to all laws applicable for the time being in force for the protection of children, including their right to education, care and protection, and against sexual offence.

The rules also emphasise on ensuring that the child shall not be subjected to any discontinuity in school education and no child shall be allowed to work consecutively for more than 27 days. The rules allows a child artist to work up to five hours a day (and for not more than three hours without rest) without actually clarifying the total number of days which a child can work in an academic year. Besides this, the Child Labour Rules do not provide for any differential protective provisions for children under six years, including infants.

While these regulatory processes intend to ensure that children are safe and their schooling or education is not compromised with, what is ignored is the child’s right to leisure and recreation in order to grow to his or her full potential.

Implementation is key

The other worrying question is that how much of these regulations can actually be brought to implementation, especially since there is no mechanism to track the number of different places a child artist could be working at simultaneously. Also, how the monitoring happens when a child has to travel overseas with the film unit?

There remain other questions too. In an industry that is largely adult-dominated both in structure and content, there are instances in which child participants are subjected to competition the way competitive exercises are perceived and defined by the adult domain. And in doing so, we don’t often take into account the amount of emotional stress children may have to go through. We as duty bearers need to be aware of what an impressionable young mind feels. Children are well appreciated and accepted among masses as child artists. However, the risks of them handling rejection or the journey thereafter when the limelight and success fades away is not well thought through or even discussed with adequate sensitivity.

While parents are in charge of their children’s welfare, both parents as well as production houses need to be very careful that their guardianship does not treat children as commodities to be profited from. Moreover, even though the state has put together certain norms, there is scope enough to sharpen them and ensure a more robust monitoring mechanism in place working in the best interest of the child.

Komal Ganotra is the Director of Policy, Research and Advocacy at CRY – Child Rights and You.

Support our journalism by subscribing to Scroll+ here. We welcome your comments at
Sponsored Content BY 

Do you really need to use that plastic straw?

The hazards of single-use plastic items, and what to use instead.

In June 2018, a distressed whale in Thailand made headlines around the world. After an autopsy it’s cause of death was determined to be more than 80 plastic bags it had ingested. The pictures caused great concern and brought into focus the urgency of the fight against single-use plastic. This term refers to use-and-throw plastic products that are designed for one-time use, such as takeaway spoons and forks, polythene bags styrofoam cups etc. In its report on single-use plastics, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) has described how single-use plastics have a far-reaching impact in the environment.

Dense quantity of plastic litter means sights such as the distressed whale in Thailand aren’t uncommon. Plastic products have been found in the airways and stomachs of hundreds of marine and land species. Plastic bags, especially, confuse turtles who mistake them for jellyfish - their food. They can even exacerbate health crises, such as a malarial outbreak, by clogging sewers and creating ideal conditions for vector-borne diseases to thrive. In 1988, poor drainage made worse by plastic clogging contributed to the devastating Bangladesh floods in which two-thirds of the country was submerged.

Plastic litter can, moreover, cause physiological harm. Burning plastic waste for cooking fuel and in open air pits releases harmful gases in the air, contributing to poor air quality especially in poorer countries where these practices are common. But plastic needn’t even be burned to cause physiological harm. The toxic chemical additives in the manufacturing process of plastics remain in animal tissue, which is then consumed by humans. These highly toxic and carcinogenic substances (benzene, styrene etc.) can cause damage to nervous systems, lungs and reproductive organs.

The European Commission recently released a list of top 10 single-use plastic items that it plans to ban in the near future. These items are ubiquitous as trash across the world’s beaches, even the pristine, seemingly untouched ones. Some of them, such as styrofoam cups, take up to a 1,000 years to photodegrade (the breakdown of substances by exposure to UV and infrared rays from sunlight), disintegrating into microplastics, another health hazard.

More than 60 countries have introduced levies and bans to discourage the use of single-use plastics. Morocco and Rwanda have emerged as inspiring success stories of such policies. Rwanda, in fact, is now among the cleanest countries on Earth. In India, Maharashtra became the 18th state to effect a ban on disposable plastic items in March 2018. Now India plans to replicate the decision on a national level, aiming to eliminate single-use plastics entirely by 2022. While government efforts are important to encourage industries to redesign their production methods, individuals too can take steps to minimise their consumption, and littering, of single-use plastics. Most of these actions are low on effort, but can cause a significant reduction in plastic waste in the environment, if the return of Olive Ridley turtles to a Mumbai beach are anything to go by.

To know more about the single-use plastics problem, visit Planet or Plastic portal, National Geographic’s multi-year effort to raise awareness about the global plastic trash crisis. From microplastics in cosmetics to haunting art on plastic pollution, Planet or Plastic is a comprehensive resource on the problem. You can take the pledge to reduce your use of single-use plastics, here.

This article was produced by the Scroll marketing team on behalf of National Geographic, and not by the Scroll editorial team.