Koodathayi Murder: Kerala High Court Refuses To Stall Release Of Web Series 'Anali'; Directs Accused Jolly Joseph To Avail Statutory Remedy
The Kerala High Court has recently (17 March) declined to restrain the release of the web series “Anali” on the OTT platform JioHotstar. The Court held that the petitioner has an effective alternative statutory remedy under the Information Technology Rules, 2021.Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas, disposed of the plea moved by Koodathayi murder accused Jollyamma Joseph @ Jolly against the release...
The Kerala High Court has recently (17 March) declined to restrain the release of the web series “Anali” on the OTT platform JioHotstar. The Court held that the petitioner has an effective alternative statutory remedy under the Information Technology Rules, 2021.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas, disposed of the plea moved by Koodathayi murder accused Jollyamma Joseph @ Jolly against the release of the web series while reserving the petitioner's liberty to pursue appellate remedy under Rule 12 of the Information Technology Rules 2021.
Koodathayi Murders refers to a series of unnatural deaths that were later regarded as murders in Koodathayi in Kerala. The crimes involves 6 deaths over a span of 14 years. The crime which was investigated in 2019 have drawn considerable media and public attention and has eventually led to the arrest of Jollyamma Joseph.
The petitioner has approached the High Court seeking a direction to restrain the release, streaming, or promotion of the web series “Anali.” She contended that the series was substantially inspired by incidents connected to criminal cases in which she is an accused.
According to her, the portrayal would malign her reputation, prejudice public opinion, and potentially affect the fairness of ongoing or future proceedings related to her conviction.
She had earlier submitted a representation to the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting. The Ministry forwarded the complaint to the platform's grievance cell, which subsequently rejected it.
The Court noted that the grievance raised by the petitioner had already been considered and rejected by the platform. It further observed that Rule 12 of the IT (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media, Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 provides an appellate mechanism against such decisions.
The Court thus held that it would not be appropriate to entertain the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, particularly given the nature of the contentions raised.
The Court disposed of the petition and granted liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal under Rule 12.
Case Title: Jollyamma Joseph @ Jolly v Jiohotstar Pvt. Ltd. and Anr
Case No: WP(C) 47510/ 2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 162
Counsel for Petitioner: K.P. Prasanth, P.S Biju. T.A Ajmal Hussain, K.S Stejo, Arunraj. S, HIjas T.T, Sunitha K.G, Anitha V.A, Sreelakshmi K
Counsel for Respondent: Santhosh Mathew (Sr.), Mathew Nevin Thomasm Arun Thomas, Veena Raveendran, Karthika Maria, Shinto Mathew Abraham, Leah Rachel Ninan, Karthik Rajagopal, Kurian Antony Mathew, Aparna S., Arun Joseph Mathew, Noel Ninan Ninan, Adeen Nazar, Rohan Mathew, Saiby Jose Kidangoor, Benny Antony Parel, Pramitha Augustine, Afsana Khan, Sreeraj S, Rajaram, Sneha J, Adarsh Padmanabhan, Amal Dileep, Anna Paul, Victor Joseph, O.M. Shalina (DSGI)