Click the Play button to listen to article

The Kerala High Court on Friday (September 18) directed the Munsiff Court, Ernakulam to expeditiously hear and dispose of Jiostar Pvt. Ltd.'s plea to set aside an order halting the release of JioHotstar webseries 'Anali', which is allegedly based on the Koodathayi murders. [2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 515]

The order to halt the series was passed in an injunction suit filed by prime accused Jollyamma Joseph @ Jolly Joseph, who is accused of murdering six of her family members, including her first husband Roy Thomas, using cyanide, with the motive to take control of the family property. Her trial is under progress before the Additional District Court (Special Court for Trial for Maradu Cases), Kozhikode.

Justice Easwaran S. today heard arguments advanced by Senior Advocate Santhosh Mathew appearing for Jiostar and Advocate Arun V.G. for Jolly.

The Court directed the munsiff court to consider Jiostar's application on the next posting date, i.e., September 23 or any other date convenient to the parties and to pass orders on the same within 10 days of hearing.

"The interim relief sought for in this suit primarily seeks to restrain the petitioner from telecasting the web series. Therefore, the aggrieved person is the petitioner and the respondents 2 and 3, who are director and producer of the series. Therefore, when the plaintiff as well as respondents 1 to 3 in the interlocutory applications are already there before the Court and have completed their respective pleadings, in so far as the interlocutory application is concerned, there is no reason as to why the trial court should defer the consideration of the application for completion of service," the Court reasoned.

Advocates Thulasi K. Raj and Saiby Jose Kidangoor appeared respectively for the producer Asiaville Studios and director Midhun Manuel Thomas.

The development comes in a plea filed by Jiostar India Pvt. Ltd., seeking expeditious hearing of its plea to vacate the temporary injunction granted by the Munsiff Court, Ernakulam in the suit filed by Jolly.

In the plea before the High Court, it was submitted that Jolly did not pursue the statutory remedies available to her in the form of an appeal before the Digital Media Content Regulatory Council inspite of specific undertaking before the High Court.

Earlier this year, her plea before the High Court seeking to restrain the series's release was dismissed and she was asked to pursue the statutory remedy available. Thereafter, the injunction suit was moved by her. Another ground raised was that Jolly did not challenge the other works, both fictional and non-fictional, based on the murders. Jiostar has cited various examples, including Netflix documentary 'Curry and Cyanide', Flowers TV series 'Koodathai', etc.

It is also contended that the injunction order was obtained by Jolly after creating a false pretext of urgency that the series would be released on August 21. Moreover, the series does not portray Jolly as the perpetrator of the murders, Jiostar has stated. It is further urged that the challenge and order against the series was made without even watching a single episode.

Jiostar has challenged the Munsiff court's action in not hearing its application to vacate the interim order on the grounds, including that the other defendants [Meta, X and Google] were not served and that there was no reasoning in the same since the OTT platform, director and producer has already appeared.

The plea thus prays for a direction to the Munsiff court to hear Jiostar on its application to vacate the stay against release of the series, without awaiting service of notice to the other defendants.

In the interim, Jiostar prays for a stay on the Munsiff court's order against release of the series and for a direction to the Munsiff court to dispose of its plea to vacate the stay on the next posting date, i.e., September 23 itself.

Case No: OP(C) 2748/2026

Case Title: Jiostar India Pvt. Ltd. v. Jollyamma Joseph @ Jolly

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 515

Counsel for the petitioner: Santhosh Mathew (Sr.), Mathew Nevin Thomas, Veena Raveendran, Anil Sebastian Pulickel,Shinto Mathew Abraham, Karthik Rajagopal, Kurian Antony Mathew, Aparnna S., Noel Ninan Ninan, Adeen Nazar, and Rohan Mathew.

Counsel for the respondents: Arun V.G., Thulasi K. Raj, Saiby Jose Kidangoor

Tags: