Kerala Court Temporarily Stays Release Of Prithviraj-Starrer 'Kaduva'

The Second Additional Sub Judge of Ernakulam has issued an ad interim injunction in a suit challenging the release of Prithviraj-starrer Kaduva restraining the respondents from publishing the movie until further orders. 

The Sub Court fund that if broadcasted or screened even for a moment, it would cause irreparable injury and hardships to the plaintiff.. 

The plaintiff's family 'Kuruvinakkunnel' is a very prominent family in Pala and he is known to a lot of people in the area as a planter and a businessman. His dispute with an IPS officer Joseph Thomas relating to a musical instrument donated to the parish church were well-known tales as well. 

When the legal battle between the duo settled down, the plaintiff was approached by the renowned film director Renji Panicker with a proposal to base a movie on his life story. The plaintiff agreed to this on certain conditions:

• Renji Panicker shall write the screenplay
• The movie shall be taken with actor Suresh Gopi or Mohanlal in the lead
• The script should be prepared based on actual events, be read out to the plaintiff upon completion and finalized only after consulting him
• The name of the movie shall be Vyakhram
• He should not be portrayed as a person who wreaks vengeance on his rivals through illegal means or by taking the law into his own hands.

However, later on, Panicker informed the plaintiff that he could not find a producer for the movie and the project was therefore shelved temporarily. The plaintiff did not hear from Panicker thereafter.

Meanwhile, Listin Stephen announced the production of a motion picture titled 'Kaduva' based on the screenplay 'Kaduvakunnel Kuruvachan' written by Jinu Varghese Abraham.

Various advertisements appeared in print and social media informing the public that the shooting of the movie had begun. Enquiries made thereafter by the plaintiff confirmed these facts, including that the screenplay for the movie was named 'Kaduvakkunnel Kuruvachan'.

He also learned that the protagonist in this script also bore the name 'Kaduvakunnel Kuruvachan' and was to be played by the actor Prithviraj Sukumaran. It was further confirmed that the movie was based on the plaintiff's life. 

The plaintiff's concern was that in this version of the movie, he was portrayed as a degenerate man with no respect for the law, perhaps nothing short of a local thug who takes law into his own hands to settle a score with his opponents.

"He is depicted as someone with no respect for the law or legal institutions; someone that is more a villain than a hero. In substance, 'Kaduvakunnel Kuruvachan' is depicted as a person having the character of a local goonda who picks up fights on the streets and in public places," the plea reads.

The suit filed through Advocates Reji George, Joe Joseph, Naseer Moidu, Binoy Davis and Saisankar S alleged that the movie was made with almost identical aspects from the plaintiff's life and that anyone who watches the film could easily identify that the protagonist was depicting him. 

"The inter-mingling of the incidences that actually happened in the life of the Plaintiff with the false events in the screenplay and movie would make the reader/viewer believe that such false events also describe actual facts about the Plaintiff or actual events in which he participated."

Contrary to what is demonstrated in the movie, the plaintiff did not have connections with any criminal. He never resorted to any criminal act to settle a score with anyone. No criminal case was registered against him for involving in any fight with anyone, either in public or in private places

He alleged that since the character 'Kaduvakkunel Kuruvachan' is depicted in the screenplay and movie as an aggressive hooligan who has no respect for law, the plaintiff would be defamed and his reputation would be seriously injured if they are allowed to be published.

"The Defendants are very well aware, that the depiction of the Plaintiff as a person who takes law into his own hands to settle a score with his opponents is against the true facts. Yet, despite the knowledge that such depiction is false, he has been so characterized in the screenplay and movie by the Defendants. The Defendants' reckless disregard for the truth about the character of the Plaintiff makes the libel in the screenplay and movie severely malicious," the plea reads.

It was also brought to the notice of the Judge that some persons who witnessed the shooting of the movie have made sarcastic comments about the plaintiff and his family.

He further came to know that a member of the public watching the shooting jeered that "the real Kuruvinakkunnel Kuruvachan will be exposed after the release of the movie."

The movie apparently contains a scene where the vicar of St. Michael's Church makes innuendos and sarcastic comments about the character representing the plaintiff's wife and attempts to molest her.

The plaintiff asserts that no such incident has ever happened. However, since the rest of the scene is accurate enough to establish the identity of the plaintiff and his wife, if it is published, the reputation of the plaintiff, as well as the reputation and dignity of his wife and family would be seriously damaged. 

In short, it was submitted that if the movie is released, it would defame the plaintiff and the members of his family.

"...the plaintiff has the fundamental right to privacy. The Defendants do not have the privilege to defame the Plaintiff or intrude into his privacy under the guise of creating a work of fiction. Even if a statement is included in the screenplay or movie that the work is exclusively one of fiction, it will not reduce the risk of damage that would be caused to the reputation and privacy of the Plaintiff by their publication, as the readers and viewers would reasonably and actually understand otherwise." 

Satisfied that the plaintiff established a prima facie case, the sub court found it just and proper to grant an ad interim injunction restraining the respondents, their men or agents from publishing the screenplay of the movie, or even releasing the movie in full or in parts including trailers, teasers or songs in theatres or any other media.

Earlier this year, producer Anurag Augustus had moved the High Court seeking to cancel screenwriter Jinu V Abraham's copyright over the script for the movie. 

Case Title: Jose Kuruvinakkunnel v. Jinu Varghese Abraham & Ors