Jiostar Moves Kerala Court Challenging Order Halting Anali Series Allegedly Inspired By Koodathayi Murders

Jiostar India Pvt. Ltd. has moved an appeal before a Kerala court challenging a temporary injunction order passed halting JioHotstar webseries 'Anali'.

When the appeal came up today (October 13), Smt. Ampilichandran P.B., Second Addl. Sub Judge (Ernakulam) recorded the appearance of respondents and posted the case to October 15 (Thursday).

Last week, the Third Additional Munsiff (RCC), Ernakulam had dismissed the application made by Jiostar Pvt. Ltd. to vacate the ex-parte ad interim injunction that was earlier granted in the suit filed by accused Jollyamma Joseph @ Jolly Joseph. The court had also allowed the injunction application filed by Jolly in a common order.

Jolly is accused of murdering six of her family members and is an undertrial prisoner awaiting trial before the Additional District Court (Special Court for Trial for Maradu Cases), Kozhikode. She had earlier moved the High Court seeking to halt the series but was asked to pursue the statutory remedies available to her. Subsequently, she moved the injunction suit and application for temporary injunction.

After the ex-parte ad interim injunction was granted by the munsiff court, Jiostar had moved the High Court seeking an expeditious hearing and disposal of its plea for vacating the same. This plea was allowed by the High Court.

After the munsiff court refused to vacate the stay and confirmed the confirmed the temporary injunction, Jiostar again moved the High Court challenging the order. The High Court, however, passed an interim order expressing its disinclination to entertain the plea as the impugned order was appealable. 

At this juncture, Jiostar preferred the present appeal alleging that Jolly slept on her rights in pursuing the statutory remedy and thereafter, created a false urgency before the munsiff court.

"The inference concerning portrayal has been drawn without the completed work being placed before, called for or viewed by the Hon'ble Munsiff Court. No particular scene, dialogue, sequence, narrative device or representation in the completed series has been identified as communicating a definitive conclusion concerning the 1st Respondent/Plaintiff's guilt. The foundational material necessary to reach the conclusion embodied in the operative injunction was therefore absent," it is stated.

It is further stated that the trailer and third-party media or promotional reports relied in the impugned order could, at the most, only indicate a possible connection between the fictional character and Jolly but do not establish the overall effect of the series. Other grounds, including non-application of mind by the Munsiff are also raised.

The appeal is moved by Advocates Veena Raveendran, Anil Sebastian Pulickel, Shinto Mathew Abraham, Leah Rachel Ninan, Mathew Nevin Thomas, Karthik Rajagopal, Kurian Antony Mathew, Aparnna S., Noel Ninan Ninan, Adeen Nazar, Rohan Mathew and Saira Susan Jojoe.