What Action Can Be Taken Against Persons Deliberately Posting Bad Reviews Of Films? Kerala High Court Asks Police Chief

The Kerala High Court on Friday sought inputs from the State Police Chief (SPC) on how individuals associated with a movie could file complaints against activities aimed towards denigrating and tarnishing a movie, so as to trigger a proper investigation.

The bench also sought to know the consequences flowing therefrom, both under penal law, as well as under the laws relating to cyber activities.

The Court issued the above direction while considering the 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'Aromalinte Adyathe Pranayam', seeking a gag order to ensure that social media influencers and film reviewing vloggers do not publish any reviews of the film for at least 7 days following its release. 

Terming movies as intellectual properties involving the 'reputations, sweat and blood, and aspirations' of several people associated with it, Justice Devan Ramachandran observed:

"While the right of free speech is inherent and constitutionally guaranteed, it certainly has to be tempered with reason and restraint, as are constitutionally required under Article 19(2). A fair criticism of an intellectual property, be that a movie or otherwise, and a pernicious attempt to blackmail, and extort, are two different aspects, which have to be clearly seen through and dealt with distinctly. Just as an attack on a property is a criminal offence, a pestilential review deliberately done with the afore intent is no less, because eventually, both are attacks on tangible properties". 

Th Court however, was quick to add that the State Police Chief was directed to respond to only action that could be taken in respect of cases involving motivated and calculated reviews made solely to extort and blackmail, and not those made bona fide. 

"Obviously, a scrutiny at the stage of acceptance of complaint may be required, coupled by a preliminary enquiry or investigation, before a Crime is registered. The protocols in this regard will have to be very carefully thought of, to ensure that honest and bona fide ‘Reviews’ are distinguished, from motivated and malafide ones," Justice Ramachandran said. 

It is the petitioner's case that the rise of digital media and the ease of smartphone access catered to individuals proclaiming themselves as film reviewers and critics without adhering to any ethical standards or accountability, and thereby engaging in unwarranted negative criticism of films, on the same day of release even without viewing the film.

The petitioner averred that such negative online criticism has far-reaching consequences and detrimental impact upon the newly released movies, as well as the makers. He added that negative reviews about films on the very day of its release would lead to viewers not watching the film at all. 

"...film criticism is an integral part of the film industry. Constructive criticisms will help the film makers to improve their crafts. There have been many doyens of constructive criticism, who have contributed abundantly for the transformation of the movies and the film fraternity as a whole. But unfortunately now days any person having a smart phone can hastily dismiss a film even without viewing the same," the plea states. 

The petitioner stated that since his movie is scheduled for release today, he has been getting several calls from social media influencers and vloggers asking for money for promoting the film and who also threatened him that if the payment was not done, negative degrading comments would be published online. The petitioner averred that such blackmailing affects the integrity of the film, and places additional financial burdens on an already precarious industry, with film makers and producers finding themselves at the mercy of such "self-proclaimed reviewers". 

"The unchecked proliferation of online film critics and vloggers who engage in negative criticism poses a significant threat to the film industry's creativity and financial stability. It is imperative to strike a balance between freedom of expression and the protection of the hard work and dedication of filmmakers. Legal remedies, along with ethical standards, are essential to address this burning issue," the plea adds. 

The petitioner claimed that when the films fail at the box office due to unwarranted negative reviews, it directly impacts the livelihood of those involved in the industry, thereby violating Articles 21 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.

The plea also seeks Centre to frame guidelines and standards for online film critics and vloggers, in a way that it wouldn't affect the film makers and the film industry.

When the matter had come up before the Court on Thursday, it was of the considered view that the case projected a 'serious issue' and it appointed Advocate Syam Padman as the Amicus Curiae. It had also sought the response of the Central Government in the matter. 

Today, the Amicus Curiae informed the Court that a preliminary enquiry carried out by him had revealed the presence of vested interests, some of whom boasted that they could ‘make’ or ‘break’ a movie.

"It is well-recognized, without requirement of restatement, that internet is a powerful weapon. But unfortunately sometimes, and in exceptional cases, it becomes a playground for wild predilections of people, whose intents are illegal, and deleterious. In fact, Adv. Padman mentioned to Court today that there is even a word for these activities called ‘review bombing’. Obviously, this will have to be treated as an attack on property, and for this, the police will certainly have a role," the Court observed in this regard. 

The Court was also told by Government Pleader Vidya Kuriakose that the State had a robust monitoring system for detecting cyber crimes, headed by competent police and technical officers. It is in this regard that there ought to be measures in place whereby any person associated with a movie could file complaint incognito, triggering investigation, and consequences therefrom. 

The Court also took note of the submission by the Central Government Counsel Suvin R. Menon that Central Government functionaries were also aware of the problem in several parts of the country, and that they would thus deliberate upon the issue and make suggestions. 

The Court further directed other regulatory authorities, including those under the Government of India, to look into the matter and inform the Court as regards instances of such pernicious activities. 

The matter has been posted for further consideration on October 10.

The present plea has been moved through Advocates C.R. Rekhesh Sharma, and A. Haroon Rasheed. 

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

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

Click Here To Read/Download The Order