Judges will not be swayed by what is depicted in movies: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court on Friday expressed its confidence in the ability of judicial officers to remain impartial and unswayed by depictions of cases they are handling in films or other forms of media [Abdal Rahim H v. Union of India & Ors.].

A Vacation Bench of Justices Gopinath P and Johnson John was hearing an appeal seeking to restrain the release of the Malayalam film 'Kaalam Paranja Kadha', which is allegedly inspired by the Venjaramoodu mass murder case.

The appeal has been moved by the father of a murder accused, on concerns that his son's trial could be unfairly influenced by the movie's depiction of the case.

Justice Gopinath, however, made it clear that the Court will not subscribe to any view that suggests that a judge's mind could be swayed by what is shown in a film.

"We cannot accept any suggestions that a sessions court will decide a case based on what is seen in a film depicting the story of the case. We cannot subscribe to the view that a film is likely to sway the mind of a judicial officer. It is too far fetched. We can tell you from our experience sitting on this chair - me for 6 years and my brother would have been sitting on the bench for 30 years. We don't decide matters on such kinds of basis," Justice Gopinath orally remarked.

Justice Gopinath went on to say that as far as the public is concerned, their minds are made up as soon as a person is arrested or during the media trials that usually ensue.

"Today, the public perception is that the moment the police arrests an accused, he is already guilty. Then there will be media versions, talk shows on TV channels. People claiming to be well-versed with the law sit and discuss," he said.

He recounted his experience of watching media discussions on a case that he himself had handled a while ago.

"When we see these discussions, we feel like laughing. They speak of things completely unrelated to the case. And we can't exactly pick up a mic and reply to any of it or tell them it is all foolish. People discuss without seeing what is there on paper, what the material is," Justice Gopinath orally remarked.

The Venjaramoodu mass murder case relates to a February 2025 incident, where the sole accused, Afan, allegedly killed five family members, including his paternal grandmother, younger brother, uncle, aunt and girlfriend, apart from attempting to kill his mother. The criminal trial in this case is pending.

The appeal moved by Abdal Rahim, father of the sole accused in the murder case, challenges the April 7 judgment delivered by Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas dismissing a writ petition to stop the release of the film 'Kaalam Paranja Kadha'.

In his appeal, Rahim argued that the film's trailer and promotional content clearly had a strong resemblance to the murder case pending before the trial court.

He contended that the core issue is the impact of the film's release on the accused's fundamental right to a fair trial under Article 21 (right to life) of the Constitution. He submitted that the release of this film would lead to a media trial, which would in turn influence public perception and affect witnesses and the overall trial environment.

He, therefore, sought a 'John Doe' injunction to restrain unidentified persons and digital platforms from publishing or spreading content based on the Venjaramoodu mass murder case.

During today's hearing, the Court said that the trial will not be affected by a film as judges will go by the evidence and witnesses have already been arrayed for both prosecution and defence.

"You cannot also say that this will affect the minds of the witnesses or affect the trial. You could say this if it was a jury trial. As judges, we have no apprehension that a judicial mind will be swayed by any movie," the Court said.

The Court also noted that the appellant had not yet watched the film. Therefore, it refused to pass any interim order halting the release and posted the matter for further hearing after the Court's ongoing vacation.

Rahim is represented by advocates Sajju V and Ajmal A.

[Live Coverage]