Giving a clean chit to Malayalam film Churuli, the Special Team constituted by the State Police Chief informed the Kerala High Court on Monday that the screening of the film did not violate any statutory law or amount to any criminal offence.
The submission was made in a report filed by the Special Team constituted as directed by the High Court to view and find out whether the screening of the film on an OTT platform had violated any statutory law or amounted to criminal offence.
The report said that "the alleged presence of obscene matter in the language used by the characters in the film is outweighed by the preponderance of artistic value and the social purpose of the film".
It further said the characters "due to their living conditions and circumstances were forced to speak in rough and tough language replete with expletives and cuss words in their day-to-day interactions".
The court report said that for a plot and the circumstances of a movie to be believable to the audience, the characters have to speak in such a language that reflects their circumstances and living condition. The language spoken by the characters in Churuli is “intrinsic to the roles played. Persons living in such conditions cannot be expected to speak in a decent language used by people living in a normal area.”
“Cinema is a work of art and a filmmaker is an artist. Article 19 of the Constitution bestows artistic freedom to artists. Law cannot direct an artist to use his artistic talents in a particular manner or direct the characters to use a particular language in a particular manner. Artists have full artistic freedom, provided that the existing laws of the country are not violated,” the report said.
In fact, the film was screened on an OTT platform which was not a public place. A place became public when a person, irrespective of age, gender or socioeconomic status, had free entry and exit without any barrier. OTT platforms could not be accessed by any person and entry was not free, it said.
It added that Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 provided punishment for publishing or transmitting obscene material in electronic form. This provision is not applicable in this case as its content is already certified as 'A' (restricted to adults) under the Central government rules.
The movie did not contain any dialogue or action or suggestion instigating violence against the state or any matter adversely affecting the sovereignty and the integrity of the state, friendly relations with other nations or any matter provoking or promoting hatred among communities or affecting communal harmony, the report added.
Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan, while reserving his verdict on the petition by Peggy Fen of Thrissur seeking a directive to remove Churuli from the OTT platform, orally observed that prima facie, no statutory provision was violated by the screening of the film and the petition was a 'publicity-oriented litigation'.
The court orally observed that there was now a phrase ‘Churuli language’. The judge said he was sure that 90 per cent of the people who made comments about the film did not watch it. “I can understand a critical review of the film after watching the movie,” he said.
The court added that another trend seen now was that lawyers, including "constitutional experts", and others criticised judgments of the High Court without reading it. The lawyers who did not even conduct criminal cases were making comments. Making comments based on WhatsApp messages was unfair. If it continued, the system would collapse, the court added.
