Kochi: The Kerala High Court on Tuesday questioned how the right to a fair trial of an accused could be affected by the release of a film, while hearing a plea seeking to stall the theatrical release of a Malayalam movie allegedly inspired by the Venjaramoodu mass murder case.

The case pertains to the alleged murder of five relatives of Afan and the attempted murder of his mother. Afan is the sole accused in the case, which is pending before the Principal Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram.

Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas was hearing a petition filed by the father of the accused in the case, challenging the release of the film ‘Kaalam Paranja Kadha’. The petitioner has contended that releasing the film during the pendency of the trial would result in a media trial and prejudice his son’s right to a fair hearing.

When the matter came up for admission, the court expressed disinclination to prevent the film’s release and asked on what basis the petitioner had concluded that the storyline was identical to the pending criminal case. The judge orally observed that the plea had been filed at the eleventh hour and noted that the film would have already received certification from the Central Board of Film Certification. The court also said it could not rely on social media posts to arrive at conclusions about the content of a film.

“How does a movie interfere with a trial or affect a fair hearing?” the court asked, adding that criminal cases are decided by judicial officers based on evidence placed before them, not on artistic works.

The petitioner’s counsel argued that the release of the movie could influence witnesses and prejudice the trial, as the case is still pending. Rejecting the contention at this stage, the court said there was no material to show that the film was identical to the Venjaramoodu case or that it would impact the trial process.

The court further observed that if such an argument were accepted, media reporting on criminal cases would also have to be restrained. It reiterated that artistic expression and creativity of filmmakers must be protected unless there is clear material to show interference with the administration of justice.

Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas also referred to an earlier case in which a plea filed by Jolly Joseph, the accused in the cyanide murder case, seeking to restrain the release of a web series was declined. Taking a similar view, the court said the balance of convenience favoured allowing the film’s release.

The court said it was not inclined to grant interim relief and issued notice to the respondents. The matter has been posted for further consideration on February 5.
(With LiveLaw inputs.)