The Borders And The Borderlessness- A Socio-Legal Reading Of Mrs. Chatterjee Vs. Norway

Amidst the fervent allegations and counter-allegations pertaining to the child welfare system of Barnevernet in Norway in the aftermath of the release of Mrs. Chatterjee V Norway, there are few concerns that remain afloat for a legal journalist trying to balance his nuanced dissection of the legal misappropriation that the plot offered.

The Kuleshov effect implemented through connected sequences have often resulted in a repetitive ordeal for the audience, the grim background tune to a lactating mother’s everyday struggles to balance a dysfunctional marriage in a foreign land have bleaked out the possible chances of making this a more well-knit enterprise of a socially aware craft. The legal representations and judicial procedures exhibited in the film are far from true. The Calcutta High Court bench allowing a Norwegian Counsel to appear as a plaintiff in the movie and plead before the Court is absurd and the idea of locus standi is misplaced here.

Giving extra-territorial effect to a foreign law or Norwegian Law in this case is against the principle of sovereignty. Even if the case that was being adjudicated before the High Court was based on a “ treaty” as the actors kept calling it, the very contention of the disputes could only be possibly adjudicated under provisions of Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act and the provisions of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 and provisions under Guardians and Wards Act, 1890. For Overseas disputes pertaining to custody of children, the Hague Convention on The Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction 1980 is the go to legislation and this definitely cannot be adjudicated before a High Court of India. For the Court to have the jurisdiction, only a writ of Habeas Corpus under Section 226 ( since the movie referred to The High Court at Calcutta) that refers to any foreign judgment in case of custody of children could have been the only solution.

The United Nations Convention on the rights of the child also places importance on the “ best interest of the child” principle. However, it must be understood that the principle is often on the borderline of Western cultural unilateralism, often turning a blind eye to the cultural values and deep rooted rearing in the South Asian countries like India. Dr. Subhradipta Sarkar of Jamia Millia Islamia  University in his piece  has pointed out that the cultural relativism has been highlighted in the plot and must be one of the important considerations in this socio-legal reading of the text. Cultural relativism, according to him, is based on historical , political and social factors and no culture is inferior to the other culture. However, based on the same cultural relativism, the Western nations with their supremacist mindset have often justified human rights violations, and this case of the child protection services that has on its hand alleged stains of child abduction, prostitution and trafficking is no different.

There is a scene where Debika Chatterjee, the protagonist, was seen taking her children to Sweden from Norway in order to ensure a just judicial process to get her child back. This reflects upon the loopholes of Schengen Border Code, which allows internal mobility between the 27 Schengen member states in Europe of which Norway and Sweden are a part. It is pertinent to be questioned if the security mechanism is actually robust and if there is a greater protection from  illegal abductions across such borders.

The Barnevernet has been however criticized in a right spirit and the European Court of Human Rights has many cases pending before it. The case of Maria Abdi Ibrahim where the Court ordered Norway to pay 30000 Euros worth of damages brings out how the Child Protection Body of the Norwegian Government has associated foul play in the crevices of its child rights protection activities.

What remains out of sight is the Norwegian government’s and the director’s failure to address the issues of the dysfunctional marriage, where the subject of domestic abuse has been mentioned, but not legally dealt with as a part of the screenplay. The subjective intrusion of the South Asian in-laws has also been shown in the film, and it invokes laughter more than irritation at the generalisation. The same generalisation and underpinning of intellectual weakness of the woman protagonist and the intended linguistic poverty is uncalled for and moves the audience away from the main theme of the movie, often invoking laughter rather than pity at the over the top expressions of the protagonist.

The consideration and the potholes in the legal aspects that the film bases itself on has a lot of misses more than hits and it is far removed from the brilliance, punch and factual correctness of the Courtroom dramas that India has produced like “Court” by Chaitanya Tamhane. The legal angle thus is an important consideration for such movies and directors must focus more on fact checking before taking the unharnessed flight of fictional license.