Lawyers Should Not Criticise A Judgment Without Reading It, They Should Protect Judiciary : Kerala High Court

However, it clarified that not all members of the Bar make such 'immature' comments and that the message was meant for the handful who engage in such practice.

On this note, the Court also added: 

"At least hereafter, the lawyers should take an oath that they will make comments in print media, visual media, and social media about a judgment of a court of law only after reading the judgment...They should protect the interest of the judiciary. The judges may come and go. But Judiciary should stand. The lawyers are part and parcel of the judiciary. Anyway, I leave it to the conscience of all lawyers." 

Justice Kunhikrishnan further emphasised that lawyers should demonstrate to the public the proper way to criticise a judgment if it deserves such criticism in the first place. 

"A film is to be assessed after watching the film in full. Without watching a movie in full, it is not proper to comment based on some isolated dialogues in the film."

The Court also mentioned that it is a settled position that artistic freedom is covered by Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution. 

"Artists are also part of our society. They create their work spending days and months. Making wrong comments on social media about an artistic creation, even without watching the creation is to be deprecated." 

The Court found it imperative to opine on the abuse of social media particularly considering how one of its earlier orders in the case was misinterpreted and widely circulated on social media platforms. 

"I am told that social media started to create a story that High Court directed the Police to find out whether there is foul language in "Churuli" film. This is how social media forum is misused by a section of society. I am not blaming the entire community who are using social media and most of them are using the social media forum in a useful manner. But a minority is misusing the same."

Soon after its release, social media was flooded with trolls including references to the profanities displayed in the movie and the confusing plot twist.

The lawyer had also accused the movie of having used words and phrases outraging the modesty of women and children equally, leaving the viewers irritated and distressed.

The Court had prima facie opined that this seemed to be a publicity litigation and that no statutory provision was violated by the publication of the film.

The Judge had also added that filmmakers have certain rights under artistic freedom:

During one of the initial hearings, the Court had suo motu impleaded the State Police Chief to file a statement to report if there was any statutory violation in exhibiting the movie.

In its statement that runs 14 pages, the police had mentioned that it did not find anything against the movie.

"A special team constituted by the State Police Chief, (which include three women members) after watching the movie reported before this Court that there is absolutely no statutory violation of any law and it is also stated in the report, which is produced as Annexure R2(b) that no criminal offence is made out as alleged in the writ petition. Therefore, even according to the State Police Department, there is no violation of any existing statutory rule in the film, and no criminal offence is made out in exhibiting the above film in the OTT platform."

Accordingly, finding no merit, the Court dismissed the plea. 

Case Title: Peggy Fen v. Central Board of Film Certification & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 73

Click Here To Read/Download The Order