Professional Film Reviews Different From Motivated Bad Film Reviews : Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court on Tuesday asked the State Police Chief to be mindful of professional reviews of a film while devising mechanism against motivated bad reviews that are solely aimed to blackmail the makers or to hamper film's success.

Justice Devan Ramachandran said there is a difference between a professional review of a product, including a movie, and a personal opinion about the same.

"It is one thing to say the movie is bad due to these reasons, and another to say that I did not like a movie due to certain reasons," the bench orally remarked.

The clarification comes soon after the Court asked the Police Chief about action taken against individuals publishing motivated and calculated reviews against movies to denigrate, extort and blackmail the makers. The direction was passed in a plea filed by Mubeen Rauf, 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'Aromalinte Adyathe Pranayam', seeking a gag order to ensure that social media influencers and film reviewing vloggers do not publish any reviews of the film for at least 7 days following its release.

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

Today, Government Pleader Vidya Kuriakose informed the Court that the modalities of controlling motivated reviews are being worked out but, it would require a consultation with all the stakeholders involved in the industry, including the Producers, Directors, financiers, the petitioners, and so on. 

"Certainly, when a protocol has been called for by this Court to be suggested by the SPC, it is intended as a general to apply in future against all illegal tendencies. It surely will take some time to be properly drafted and settled," the Court then noted.

Significantly, the Producers' Association has also moved a plea before the High Court, seeking similar remedies as Rauf. It was also informed that in light of its orders, the targeted and pernicious reviews against Aromalinte Adyathe Pranayam had been controlled to a large extent. 

Senior Advocate Sudhi Vasudevan submitted that apart from the SPC, it would also be for the Bureau of Indian Standanrds (BIS) to ensure that the Principles of Requirements for Control Moderation and Publication of Online Reviews is implemented effectively. He thus prayed that the said authorities would also be ordered to take necessary actions. 

The DSGI S. Manu submitted that he shall obtain specific instructions from the said authorities as to how the same could be implemented. The Court appointed Advocate Syam Padman as Amicus Curiae in the matter and posted it for further consideration after two weeks.  

The 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