Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V. Kunhikrishnan, J.
Peggy Fen. – Petitioner
Versus
Central Board of Film Certification and Ors. – Respondents
WP(C) NO. 28288 OF 2021
Decided On : 10-02-2022
Constitution of India - Art. 226 - To remove the Malayalam movie "Churuli" from the 'Over The Top Platform' OTTP - Overdose of foul language used in the movie - Obscene and filthy language - Opposed to public morality and tranquility.
Finding of the Court:
It is clear that a film is to be assessed based on its entirety. Whether the dialogues of a film correlate to the story in the film is the point to be decided. The film is to be considered as a whole in a fair, free and liberal spirit without dwelling too much upon isolated dialogues or strong words used in the film here and there. The film is a creation of an artist. The filmmaker is trying to depict a story and the only point to be looked into is whether the dialogues in the film are within the four corners of the story and whether the dialogues in the movie are relevant in – If this Court starts to interfere with the exhibition of films, saying that some dialogues in a movie are obscene or some dialogues are foul language there will be no end to it. A film is an exhibition of a story by the filmmaker. He is entitled to use his artistic freedom. There is no compulsion to view this film by each and every citizen of this country. Moreover, the film in question was uploaded to OTT platforms. In OTT platform, the view is restricted to the subscribers of the 2nd respondent. The only Rule that gives some guidelines in the OTT platform movies is Rule 2021.
Result : Dismissed
Key Points: - The judgment emphasizes that a film must be assessed in its entirety and artistic freedom under Article 19(1)(a) should not be unduly restricted by isolated dialogues (!) (!) (!) . - It discusses the applicability of Cinematograph Act, 1952 versus IT Act, 2000 and IT Rules 2021 for OTT platform content, noting CBFC’s limited role in OTT and the availability of grievance redressal under IT Rules 2021 (Part III) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) . - The court notes the petitioner did not exhaust the IT Rules grievance mechanism and that the petition is not maintainable on this ground (!) (!) . - It records the State Police’s report finding no statutory or criminal violations and upholds artistic freedom without directing removal of the film from the OTT platform (!) (!) . - The decision reinforces that OTT platforms are not public places and viewing is subscription-based, and that removal orders should consider existing statutory provisions and available remedies rather than blanket censorship (!) (!) (!) . - It cautions against harmful or misinformed social media criticism and underscores the filmmaker’s right to artistic freedom while ensuring adherence to applicable laws (!) (!) . - The Court ultimately dismisses the writ petition for lack of proper pleadings and maintainability, affirming that no mandatory removal order should be issued in the absence of exhaustion of grievance mechanisms and clear statutory violation findings (!) .
JUDGMENT :
This writ petition is filed by an advocate with a prayer to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to remove the Malayalam movie "Churuli" from the 'Over The Top Platform' (for short 'OTT Platform') as expeditiously as possible. The second prayer is to issue such other writ, order, and direction directing the respondents as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the interest of justice.
“Pleadings of the parties”
2. The petitioner is an advocate by profession and is having an office at Ayyanthole, Thrissur. 'Churuli' is a Malayalam language movie directed and co-produced by renowned director Lijo Jose Pellisseri and written by S.Harish. The movie was released on the OTT Platform in SonyLIV on 19.11.2021. According to the petitioner, even though the movie 'Churuli' is capable of invoking a sense of curiosity and mystery in the minds of the audience, there is an overdose of foul language used in the movie. It is pleaded that the movie contains obscene and filthy languages which are opposed to public morality and tranquility. According to the petitioner, every character in the movie uses at least a single offensive word in every dialogue they deliver. The filthy languages are used lavishly and without any curtain. It is the case of the petitioner that the words and language used in the film are not one that can be used publicly and openly. It is the case of the petitioner that, a person of common parlance will not use such languages even privately at home. According to the petitioner, the filmmaker had used such language deliberately with the intention to get more attention to the movie. Apart from using filthy words, the petitioner submitted that there are a lot of usages which is totally against the morality of ladies and objectionable to all ladies' common conduct. The words used in the movie outrages the modesty of ladies and children and a person who is watching this movie will feel irritated and disgusted, the petitioner submits. It is pleaded that since a movie which is supposed to be a form of art, it influences common people of the society and it is common among people to imitate the dialogues of the Malayalam movies and if this similar situation happens with the movie ‘Churuli’, it will affect the public morality and tranquility. It is contended that the censor board has violated the rules and regulations by giving permission to release this movie. According to the petitioner, releasing a movie of this kind on a public platform will attract the offences under the Indian Penal Code. According to the petitioner, during the pandemic season, the children and the teenagers are staying at home as their schools are shut down and they are more prone to this OTT platform and this uncensored content. The parents seem it very difficult to monitor the children all the time, especially teenagers, who cannot be kept away from the phone or any other like gadgets as these devices are necessary for schools and colleges works. According to the petitioner, in January 2019 eight video streaming platforms had signed a self-regulatory code that stated a set of guiding principles for the contents which can be displayed online. There were five terms and conditions which had to be mandatorily followed and the same is extracted in the grounds of the writ petition and the same is extracted hereunder also:
(b) Display of content which can hurt religious sentiments could not be streamed.
(c) Visuals promoting child pornography to be strictly prohibited.
(d) Content which is banned by the law or order of the country could not be streamed.
(e) Terrorism of any kind cannot be promoted.
It is the case of the petitioner that there is violation of the above terms and conditions also. Hence, this writ petition.
3. The 1st respondent in this writ petition is the Central Board of Film Certification (for short 'CB
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
