Decode Ballistic Reports Like a Pro. Register Now!
LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Quick Summary
The Kerala High Court has ruled that filmmakers have significant artistic discretion, which is only limited by Article 19(2) of the Constitution. This means they cannot be prevented from using foul language in films unless it breaches reasonable restrictions outlined in that Article. The court dismissed a plea to remove the movie 'Churuli' from an OTT platform, finding the use of coarse language was justified to realistically portray the characters' harsh living conditions in a remote forest setting.

  • The Hon’ble Kerala HC has, in Peggy Fen vs. Central Board Of Film Certification and ors. has held that filmmakers have a certain artistic discretion which can only be limited by Article 19(2) of the Constitution. Thus, they cannot be barred from using foul language in a movie unless it stands in violation of the reasonable restrictions enshrined in the aforementioned Article.
  • The instant plea was filed to remove the Malayalam movie Churuli from the OTT platform SonyLiv for the alleged excessive use of obscene language. To analyse why such foul language was used, the court dived into the plot of the movie and observed that the movie was about a group of fugitives, residing in deep forests and cut off from the outside world. The inmates of the village are rough and tough and are under a constant threat of the law.
  • In an earlier hearing in the same case,the Court had observed that artistic freedom means the freedom to imagine, create and distribute culture. The same has been guaranteed under Article 19(1) of the Constitution.
  • The Court had previously impleaded the State Police Chief to file a statement reporting whether there had been any statutory violations in the movie. The team reported that the characters in the movie struggled for survival daily. Due to their living conditions, the characters are forced to speak in a coarse language with cuss words in their daily interactions. Thus, the Court observed that the filmmaker had used such language to make the set-up of the movie believable.
  • The Court also observed that criticising a movie without even watching it would hurt the filmmaker’s interests.
  • The Court also observed that the plea appeared to be a mere publicity stunt, as there are no proper pleadings in the petition and seemed to be filed just to gain publicity. A movie cannot be ordered to be removed from an OTT platform just because of an allegation that it contains foul language.
  • Thus, the petition was dismissed by the Court.
"Loved reading this piece by Shweta?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"




Tags :

  Views  101  Report



Comments