Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas dismissed a writ petition by Abdal Rahim H, holding that a movie cannot be stalled on assumptions that it is based on the pending Venjaramoodu mass murder case.
The Kerala High Court has refused to restrain the release, exhibition and broadcast of the Malayalam film Kaalam Paranja Kadha till the conclusion of trial in three murder cases. Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas passed the order on April 7, 2026 in Abdal Rahim H v. Union of India & Ors., W.P.(C) No. 3872 of 2026
The petitioner, Abdal Rahim H, is the father of an accused in what the Court described as the Venjaramoodu mass murder case. The judgment records that the incident involved the murder of the accused’s grandmother, brother, uncle, aunt and girlfriend, apart from an attempt to murder his mother, and that the case is pending trial. According to the petitioner, he learnt that the movie Kaalam Paranja Kadha, scheduled for release, was based entirely on the murder case against his son. He claimed that release of the film while the trial was pending would pave the way for trial by media, influence witnesses and the public at large, prejudice the right to a fair trial of the accused, and cause irreversible damage to the petitioner’s reputation. He therefore sought restraint on the release of the movie.
The respondents in the case were the Union of India, the Central Board of Film Certification, the Regional Officer, Central Board of Film Certification, the State Police Chief & Director General of Police, Karunagappally Krishnan Kutty, and Prasad Nooranad. The petitioner was represented by Advocates Sajju V. and Ajmal A. The order records appearances of Smt. V.K. Hema, Central Government Counsel, Sri. Abraham Samson, Smt. Lovely Samson, and Sri. K. Suresh Kumar (Kurathikadu). The judgment also notes that respondents 5 and 6 are the producer and director of the movie respectively.
In their counter affidavit, respondents 5 and 6 denied the allegation that the movie’s storyline was inspired by the Venjaramoodu mass murder case. They stated that the production team was concerned with the rising trend of drug usage and the resultant crimes, and that the movie was created to inform society about the ill effects of drugs. They also contended that the petitioner’s allegation was based on a notion generated by misleading sources and uncontrolled social media platforms, and had no basis. They denied that the movie was based on the crime registered against the petitioner’s son, and further denied any possibility of trial by media influencing witnesses, the public, or the justice delivery system.
The third respondent stated that the movie was screened on 08.02.2026 by the Examination Committee, which sent its report to the second respondent. The matter was thereafter referred to the Revising Committee under Rule 24(1) of the Cinematograph (Certification) Rules, 1983. A memo filed on behalf of respondents 1, 2 and 3 pointed out that the Revising Committee granted a UA16+ certificate to the film, and that the theme and content of the film depicted drug use, violence against women, and sequences of violence and murder, subject to certain insertions and modifications directed by the Revising Committee.
The Court held that the petitioner’s allegation that the movie was based on the mass murder case was founded on assumption, since he had neither seen the movie nor had it been released. Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas observed that while release of the film would make the challenge a fait accompli, the producer and director had denied that the film was based on the Venjaramoodu mass murder case. In those circumstances, the Court held that the release of the movie could not be stalled on the basis of the petitioner’s assumptions alone.
The Court further held that even if a movie has a storyline based on a recent crime, courts cannot interfere and stall its release on the supposition that the trial will be affected. The judgment states that a trial before a court of law is presided over by a judicially trained person, and that a judicially skilled mind is not swayed by depiction in a movie. The Court said that a court appreciates evidence on settled principles of law and arrives at conclusions on the materials placed before it, and that depiction in a movie cannot be regarded as evidence. It added that judicial decision-making is based on law and evidence, not on fiction.
The Court also observed that a movie is an art which can be inspired by various circumstances, including real incidents or fictional themes. Merely because a movie is based on a theme having some similarity to an incident that occurred in society, that cannot be a reason to prevent such an art from being created or released for public viewing. The judgment states that a judicially trained mind is distinct from a hypersensitive mind, and the former cannot be swayed by the contents of an artist’s creation.
The Court referred to Zee News v. Navjot Sandhu and Others, 2002 SCC OnLine SC 1288, observing that the decision was relevant in the context of the petitioner’s apprehension that the movie would affect the pending trial. It also cited Nachiketa Walhekar v. Central Board of Film Certification and Another, (2018) 1 SCC 778, where the Supreme Court observed that an artist has freedom to express himself in a manner not prohibited in law, and that such prohibitions are not to be read by implication to crucify the rights of the expressive mind.The judgment further relied on Raj Kapur v. Laxman, (1980) 2 SCC 175, where the Supreme Court held that freedom of expression is fundamental and that the censor is a statutory authority policing films under Article 19(2) from the angle of public order, decency or morality. Justice Thomas also referred to the Kerala High Court’s decision in Catholic Congress v. Juby Thomas, 2025 (6) KLT 766, which held that the social impact of a movie is to be judged from the perspective of an ordinary person of reasonable intelligence and not that of a hypersensitive person.
The Court noted that the Censor Board as well as the Revising Committee had screened the movie and did not find it to be objectionable or opposed to public viewing. Holding that the petitioner’s allegations were based on apprehensions and social media posts, and that there was nothing concrete before the Court to show that those allegations were founded on solid material, the Court held that it could not exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition was accordingly dismissed.
