'Filmmaker Has Artistic Freedom': Kerala High Court Impleads State Police Chief To Prove Statutory Violation In Publication Of Churuli

The Kerala High Court on Friday suo motu impleaded the State Police Chief to file a statement to report if there was any statutory violation in exhibiting the Malayalam movie 'Churuli'. The Court passed the direction in the writ petition filed against the movie citing excessive use of abusive and obscene language 

Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan while hearing the matter also noted that prima facie, he was of the opinion that no statutory provision was violated by the publication of the film: 

"This court invoking the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot dictate the filmmaker to use the Valluvanadan slang Malayalam or Kannur slang Malayalam or Trivandrum slang Malayalam in the movie. This Court can only verify whether the exhibition of the film violates any exiting statutory provision enacted to ensure public order, decency or morality. While deciding the same, the artistic freedom of the filmmaker must be kept in mind Prima facie it appears to me that there is no criminal offence involved here."

The observation came in a plea filed by a lawyer Peggy Fen through Advocates C.A. Anoop and Krishna R. alleging that the Lijo Jose Pellissery- directed film used offensive words excessively in a deliberate attempt to garner more attention to it.

It was contended that the Censor Board has violated the rules and regulations by sanctioning the release of the movie and that such a release even attracts provisions of IPC.

The mystery-horror film Churuli was released on Sony LIV, a public OTT platform, on November 19th 2021. Directed and co-produced by Lijo Jose Pellissery and written by S Hareesh, the plot is based on a short story from the book Kaligaminarile Kuttavalikal, authored by Vinoy Thomas. Soon after its release, social media was flooded with trolls including references to the profanities displayed in the movie and the confusing plot twist.

The Court noted that the petitioner had conveniently avoided narrating the plot of the film in the writ petition but rather picked certain instances where abusive words were used by the characters. The prayer in the petition was to remove the film from the OTT platform.

The Judge observed that the Court cannot direct the same and that it was the discretion of the artist. In its order, the Bench has also narrated a short version of the plot.

"Churuli is an imaginary village of the filmmakers situated in a forest area. Inmates of Churuli have no connection with the outside world and all of them are absconders. The language used by the inmates is colloquial language containing obscene and filthy words. Two cops reach Churuli and apprehend a criminal. The cops reach Churuli in disguise and try to mingle with the villagers to find the criminal they are searching for. The cops also use the same obscene and filthy language to find the wanted criminal. At last, they apprehend the criminal. This is the sum and substance of the admitted story of the film."

Further, the Court noted that a filmmaker has certain rights under artistic freedom: 

"A cinema is the creation of a filmmaker. Artistic freedom generally means the freedom to imagine, create and distribute cultural expressions. Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution envisages a fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression to all citizens but of course with an exception mentioned in Article 19(2)." 

It was also held that since the movie was broadcast on an OTT platform and not a movie theatre, there was no question of the viewers being held captive audience to the film. 

"The film Churuli is exhibited on an OTT platform. Those who want to watch it can pay and watch it. There is no compelled viewing of this movie. The (viewers of the) OTT platforms cannot be considered as a captive audience to watch the movie."

Deeming it appropriate to gather the inputs from the State Police Chief in the matter, the Court suo motu impleaded the SPC. It was directed that a team be constituted within three days to watch the movie and make a report on the same regarding any statutory violations involved in its publication. The State Police Chief was thereby directed to file a statement to this effect by the next hearing date. 

The respondents in the case were also granted the liberty to file a counter-affidavit. The matter will be taken up for further consideration on 31st January.

Case Title: Peggy Fen v. Central Board of Film Certification & Ors.