'Filmmakers' Rights Can't Be Sacrificed' : Kerala High Court Expresses Concern At Lack Of Regulations For Online Film Reviews

The Kerala High Court on Tuesday took stern view of film reviewers who were not registered under any organization, nor accredited, and also had no guidelines to follow while publishing their content on the online platform. 

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'Aromalinte Adyathe Pranayam', seeking a gag order to ensure that social media influencers and film reviewing vloggers do not publish any reviews of the film for at least 7 days following its release, and another by the Producers' Association highlighting "review bombings" against newly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

"Writ petition of individuals behind the films cannot be sacrificed at the altar of freedom of expression asserted by individuals who seem to be under the impression that they are not governed by any parameter or regulations, particularly when there is nothing on record to show that any of them are registered or akin to journalists or such other service providers," the Single Judge Bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran observed in the order. 

The Court went on to orally state that while persons expressing their opinions on newspapers and televisions were under some form of regulation or the other, no such regulations existed for those doing the same on online platforms. 

"Normally, if you express your opinion, you’re under some regulation. For eg, in case of TV platform, you’re under the TRAI. You write something on papers, you’re governed by the printed newspapers guidelines. But you’re saying that in online platforms, anyone can write whatever they want? They’re not accredited reviewers, and they talk about their rights, but without a semblance of their duties. I am surprised that none of the so-called reviewers are coming before me if they have such strong conviction about their rights. It is all done in the shadows," the judge orally said.

The Court went on to state that there were two kinds of reviews - one where individuals themselves started a YouTube channel or such others to express their views, and another wherein platforms gave the right to rate movies or products. According to Justice Ramachandran, both had to be dealt with in different ways. 

"There should be civility in everything. In public life itself civility is going down," the judge said. 

The Court had earlier called for 'close watch' of online platforms to ensure that that anonymous and mala fide reviews of films are not allowed to circulate on the same. 

It was informed by the Amicus Curiae Shyam Padman today that the menace of negative online reviews had been curbed to some extent following the orders issued by the Court. 

Government Pleader Vidya Kuriakose added in this regard that action was being taken on some complaints that had been received, and that all anonymous posts were also being watched closely. 

Advocate Sudhi Vasudevan appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that since most persons who claimed to be reviewers were not accredited as journalists, nor operated under any guidelines, a long-lasting solution could be found only if the Central Government adopted appropriate measures in terms of the standards fixed by the Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS).

The Central Government Counsel Suvin R. Menon averred that the Central Government was looking into the issue, and sought 2 weeks' time to file its response. 

The Court thus granted the time sought for. 

Before adjourning the matter, Justice Ramachandran said, "reviews are intended to inform and enlighten, but not to destroy and extort".

The matter has thus been posted for further consideration on a later date.

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