Review Bombing| Kerala High Court Calls For 'Close Watch' Of Online Platforms Against Anonymous & Malicious Film Reviews

The Kerala High Court on Wednesday called for a 'close watch' on online platforms to ensure that that anonymous and mala fide reviews of films are not allowed to circulate on such platforms. 

Justice Devan Ramachandran directed the concerned authorities to take necessary action under the Information Technology Act ('IT Act'), and implement the same scrupulously, against any such anonymous, malicious activities targeting films, or any others in the business sphere, with an intent to blackmail and to extort.

"A close watch on the online platforms shall be maintained to ensure that anonymous, mala fide content is not allowed to circulate, and necessary action under the IT Act shall be taken and implemented scrupulously without any delay," the Bench directed. 

The Court issued the above direction while considering a plea filed by the director of 'Aromalinte Adyathe Pranayam', seeking a gag order to ensure that social media influencers and film reviewing vloggers do not publish any reviews of the film for at least 7 days following its release, and another by the Producers' Association highlighting review bombings against newly released films. 

During the hearing today, Amicus Curiae Shyam Padman, drew the attention of the Court to the peculiar practice of certain persons acting anonymously on the online platform, in a malicious manner, which he submitted would fall foul of Sections 66C ('Punishment for Identity Theft') and 66D ('Punishment for cheating by personation) read with Section 79 ('Exemption from liability of intermediary in certain cases') of the IT Act.

The counsel submitted that he had obtained information regarding certain pages having fictional names, and operating without any credentials, thus making it completely anonymous. He thus submitted that the same would thus have to be appropriately dealt with by the police or the jurisdictional governments. 

"This is a new World, not one we grew up in. Freedom of speech and expression should not be used for justifying a crime. We are not covering a crime by Fundamental Rights. Suppose you go to a hotel and you didn’t like the food, you are entitled to your opinion. But you can’t use it to blackmail. There is a thin line between bona fide and mala fide acts," the Court orally remarked in this regard.

The Court was also informed that the State Police Chief (SPC) had drafted a protocol to deal with cases of motivated, malicious, negative movie reviews, review bombing, and so on. Senior Advocate Sudhi Vasudevan instructed by Advocate Shilpa, however, highlighted the importance of the Union of India involving with appropriate measures, based on the standards fixed by the Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS). 

Deputy Solicitor General responded on behalf of the Central Government that the same would require a studied response and recommendation therein, and sought two weeks' time for the same, which the Court permitted. 

"I have no doubt that the controversy that we are now dealing with is a dynamic one which will evolve in the times to come. This is because any protocol placed or any step taken by the competent authorities, will certainly be tried to be circumvented by persons who are acting with a lure of lucre. And obviously, the system will also have to be alive to the challenges that it faces from time to time," the Court observed. 

While terming the protocols formulated by the SPC as a 'welcome step', the Court added that more effort would be required in this regard, particularly in view of the standards prescribed by the BIS. 

The Court also granted liberty to the Amicus Curiae to verify and suggest sufficient modifications to the protocols suggested by the SPC.

The matter has been posted for further consideration after two weeks. 

Case Title: Mubeen Rauf v. Union of India & Ors. and connected matter

Case Number: WP(C) NO. 32733 OF 2023 and WP(C) NO. 33322 OF 2023