Movie Inspired By A Person's Life Doesn't Mean It Is Completely Their Life Story: Kerala High Court Dismisses PIL Against Film 'Kurup'
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday dismissed an Advocate's PIL against release of Malayalam movie 'Kurup' which is based on the biography of a proclaimed offender named Sukumara Kurup. The petitioner had sought protection of right to privacy of ‘proclaimed offenders’, under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Justice...
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday dismissed an Advocate's PIL against release of Malayalam movie 'Kurup' which is based on the biography of a proclaimed offender named Sukumara Kurup. The petitioner had sought protection of right to privacy of ‘proclaimed offenders’, under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Murali Purushothaman observed that although the story does get inspiration from the life story of a proclaimed offender, it did not however indicate that the story was the complete life story of that person, nor that publication of the same would affect his right to privacy.
The Court found merit in the contention advanced that once CBFC certification had been issued, there was a prima facie presumption that the concerned authorities had taken into account all the aspects regarding the movie and found it fit for Certification.
It also took note of the aspect that neither the proclaimed offender nor his family members had claimed that the movie depicted his story and offended his right to privacy.
The bench found that the petitioner had not made out an appropriate case, and dismissed the petition.
"Movie has been screened. Therefore, first prayer sought for by the petitioner has become infructuous. Giving due consideration to the rival contentions and the material on record, this Court is of the view that the petitioner, who is a third party, has not made out a case for granting the second prayer also," the Court observed while dismissing the petition.
The State government, being the custodian of the properties of the proclaimed offender, are duty bound to protect his right to privacy, the Petitioner had averred. It was also his case that Centre is duty bound to protect accused's rights under Articles 20 and 21 of the Constitution. It was also pointed out that the rights of proclaimed offenders are vested with the Government till they continue being proclaimed offenders, as that the publication of a movie on the life of such a proclaimed offender ought to be prevented since "it is a clear violation of the fundamental right of the underprivileged section of the State".
On behalf of the Executive Director of Wayfarer Films Pvt. Ltd. (4th respondent), it was contended that the matter had become infructuous on account of the movie already having been released on November 12, 2021. It was submitted that the further prayer to protect the privacy of ‘proclaimed offenders’ was not maintainable in law. It was pointed out that the petitioner had raised the grievance on the basis of certain articles published in the online version of the Hindu newspaper and information about the movie available in Wikipedia, and that the said content did not amount to official communication as regards the movie from its producers.
It was submitted that the said film was not a documentary, but only a work of fiction. Additionally, it was contended that the movie had already obtained certification from CBFC, declaring it to be fit for exhibition in the public platform.
The Director, M-Star Satellite Communications Pvt. Ltd. (5th respondent) contended that the person based on whom the movie was made, and whose privacy was alleged to have been infringed, is a proclaimed offender who has been evading the process of law for several years. It was submitted that since the proclamation under Section 82 CrPC was pending against him, the information about him is known to everyone and which is already in the public domain.
The CBFC (6th respondent) on its part explained the guidelines to be followed, while issuing certificate as per the Act and the Rules. It was pointed out that directions had been issued to change the first name 'Sukumara' of the offender, and that the name of the victim had also nowhere been divulged. It was also directed to include a disclaimer in the beginning of the film.
The respondents were represented by Deputy Solicitor General of India S. Manu, Senior Advocates G. Shrikumar, and Jaju Babu, and Advocates P. Fazil, Saju Thaliath, Anesh Paul, and Jithin Paul Varghese.
Case Title: Sebin Thomas v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 189