The Kerala High Court Today (March 18) debated whether violent scenes in movies are influencing society or just reflecting reality. The Court urged careful regulation while respecting freedom of expression.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
KOCHI: The Kerala High Court on Tuesday questioned how much control the State should have over the way violence is shown in movies and other media. The Court also asked whether such portrayals are just a reflection of what is already happening in society.
The Bench of Justice AK Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice CS Sudha was reviewing cases related to the Hema Committee Report, which focuses on the exploitation of women in the Malayalam film industry.
During the hearing, the Kerala Women’s Commission raised concerns about the way violence is shown in films. In response, Justice Nambiar acknowledged that such portrayals can influence people.
“No doubt that violence in films, visual media etc. can have undesirable effects on the people because it can be seen as encouraging them because you glorify this violence. But on the other hand, you have the freedom of speech and expression and to what extent will that go, it will again depend on what is public morality [and] what is constitutional morality,”
-he said.
At the same time, the Court also considered the possibility that movies might not be encouraging violence but simply showcasing what is already happening in real life.
“One has to see the development of the law in this subject and what society considers to be immoral or moral. Is too much of violence or glorifying of violence desirable or is it just them telling us what’s happening in society today. One must consider whether movies are merely reflecting the violence in society,”
-Justice Nambiar stated.
The Court suggested that these points should be taken into account when drafting the new law aimed at preventing harassment on movie sets.
“Consider all such materials when you bring in the draft legislation,”
-the Bench remarked.
It also directed the Women’s Commission to examine how much the State can interfere in such matters.
“This is a matter for an interesting study. What is the level of interference that you can expect from a State? These are matters which must come from within, how do you control this? You have the censor board and things but that’s based on a different yardstick. You are appearing for Women’s Commission, please look into these aspects also,”
-the judge said.
During the proceedings, the Court also discussed the impact of a recent Supreme Court judgment, which allowed police investigations based on witness statements recorded before the Committee.
Advocate General Gopalakrishna Kurup informed the Court that the Supreme Court had refused to stop the Special Investigation Team (SIT) from proceeding with its inquiry into the matter.
Justice Nambiar clarified that the SIT would not force any victim to give statements and that anyone receiving notices could inform the authorities if they did not wish to participate.
Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, representing the Women in Cinema Collective (WCC), informed the Court that some victims had received notices from the SIT but were not ready to come forward at this stage.
In response, the Court assured that anyone who felt pressured or harassed by the SIT could directly approach the High Court for help.
The Court further explained that if a person received a summons under Section 183 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which outlines the procedure for witness examination, they could refuse to cooperate. However, if they did not respond, repeated notices might be sent to confirm their decision.
Meanwhile, counsel Sandhya Raju pointed out issues of gender bullying in industries like tourism.
While discussing the scope of the new law, the Court mentioned that it would likely cover areas beyond just the entertainment industry.
The Court then directed the Amicus Curiae to go through all the necessary materials before finalizing the draft legislation. However, it made it clear that its role was only to assist the State in making a well-rounded law and not to force any decision on the authorities.
The matter is scheduled for the next hearing on April 4.
CASR TITLE:
Navas A @ Paichira Navas v State Kerala and connected cases.
Would You Like Assistance In Drafting A Legal Notice Or Complaint?
CLICK HERE
Click Here to Read Our Reports on CJI Sanjeev Khanna
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
