In Abdul Rahim H v. Union of India [2026 KER 31002], the Kerala High Court held that once the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) has cleared a film for public viewing, the court cannot prohibit its release solely because it is based on a pending criminal trial. The court dismissed the plea to stall the release of the film ‘Kaalam Paranja Kadha‘ until the conclusion of the trial in ‘Venjaramoodu mass murder case.’
Background of the Murder Case
The petitioner’s son is allegedly involved in a high-profile murder case involving the deaths of several family members and his girlfriend. While the criminal trial is still pending, the petitioner sought to block the film’s release, fearing it would prejudice the ongoing proceedings.
Key Judicial Observations
The Court emphasized that trials are presided over by judicially trained minds. A judge’s professional skill ensures they are not swayed by cinematic depictions. Judicial decisions are reached by evaluating evidence and law, not fiction or artistic dramatization.
Even if a movie is inspired by recent crimes, it remains a work of art. The Court noted that as long as an artistic creation adheres to the law, the judiciary should not interfere based on the mere supposition that it might affect a trial.
Merely because a film shares similarities with a real-world incident does not provide sufficient grounds to stifle its release.
Judicial Precedents
In Nachiketa Walhekar v. CBFC [(2018) 1 SCC 778], the Supreme Court held that an artist has the fundamental freedom to express themselves within the bounds of law. Prohibitions cannot be “read into” the law by implication to crucify expressive rights.
In Raj Kapur v. Laxman [ (1980) 2 SCC 175], the Supreme Court held that the censor Board is a statutory body regulating films under Article 19(2) of the Constitution for public order and decency, and not a moral tailor tasked with enforcing personal fashion or stifling expression.
In Catholic Congress v. Juby Thomas [2025 (6) KLT 766], Kerala High Court observed that tThe social impact of a film must be judged from the perspective of an ordinary person of reasonable intelligence, not a hypersensitive viewer.
Conclusion
The ruling reaffirms that judicial decision-making is based on law and evidence.
By protecting the release of the film in this case, the Kerala High Court underscored that artistic expression cannot be held hostage to the “orthodox notions” of morality or the hypothetical fears of a trial being prejudiced by the silver screen.
This decision highlights that once a statutory body (CBFC) has certified a film, the stay its release requires a clear violation of Article 19(2) of the Constitution rather than mere subjective concerns.
