Can't Dictate Filmmakers To Use Only Decent Language In Films, They Have Artistic Discretion Limited Only By Article 19(2): Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court on Thursday while dismissing a plea seeking to remove Malayalam movie Churuli from OTT platform SonyLiv for its allegedly excessive use of obscene language, observed that a filmmaker has the discretion to decide what type of language should be used by the characters in his film. 

Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan added that as long as the language used in a movie was within the contours of the reasonable restrictions imposed on freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(2) of the Constitution of India,

"Nobody can dictate a filmmaker to use only decent language in his film and it is his artistic discretion to choose the language but of course with reasonable restriction mentioned in Article 19(2) of the constitution." 

The Court had previously opined on similar lines during the earlier proceedings in the matter. It was then observed 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)."

To analyse why the particular language was chosen for the movie, the Judge delved into its plot and theme.

Upon such examination, the Court found that 'Churuli' portrays the life of a group of fugitives from law residing in deep forests, locked away from the outside world. The inmates of the fictional village are rough and tough, braving the odds of nature and are in constant dread of apprehension by law. Their living conditions are meagre and life is an everyday struggle for existence.

During one of the initial hearings, the Court had suo motu impleaded the State Police Chief to file a statement to report if there was any statutory violation in exhibiting the movie. 

The Special Team constituted to inspect the same observed that for the characters in the movie, it is a daily struggle for existence. The centre of action in the movie is an illegal arrack brewing centre deep inside the forest. Due to their living conditions and circumstances, the characters are forced to speak in rough and tough language with expletives and cuss words in their day to day interactions.

The Court noted that the filmmaker used a language, which, according to his artistic view, is used by the people in "Churuli".

"In order to make the movie believable and for the audience to fully appreciate the life and culture of the character, the filmmakers use such languages. The persons living in such conditions cannot be expected to speak in a decent language used by people residing in a normal area," reads the judgment. 

Further, the State Police Chief had clearly stated in his statement that there was no statutory violation of any rules and no criminal offence is made out in exhibiting the movie "Churuli".

In such circumstances, the Judge decided that it could not direct the respondents to remove the movie from the OTT platform. 

Moreover, the Court suspected this petition to be a mere publicity stunt as it had opined before during one of the hearings: 

"...there is no proper pleading in the writ petition. The prayers in the writ petition are vague. A reading of the writ petition itself will show that the intention of the petitioner is only publicity. Even the relevant rule which is applicable in an OTT platform movie is not referred to in the writ petition. Simply making an observation that the movie contains foul language or obscene language, this Court cannot direct to remove the movie from OTT platform."

Justice Kunhikrishnan also expressed his doubts over whether the petitioner herself had watched the movie in full with patience before moving the Court.

"I can understand a criticism about a movie after watching the movie in full. But, without watching the movie, making comments alleging that it is a bad film, will hurt the filmmakers and artists. They are also human beings. Their work may be a good artistic creation or sometimes it may not be a good work. But before making comments against it or in favour of it, it is the duty of the citizens to watch their creation."

Therefore, finding that no relief could be granted, the writ petition was dismissed. 

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