Lawyers should read judgment before criticising it: Kerala High Court

While dismissing a plea against the Malayalam movie Churuli for its alleged use of foul language, the Kerala High Court on Thursday observed that lawyers ought to read judgements before they criticise the same on mainstream or social media [Peggy Fen v Central Board of Film Certification & Ors.] .Justice PV Kunhikrishnan said that lawyers should be an example for the rest of the citizens on how to criticise judgments if such criticism is warranted."Lawyers should show the path to the society about the manner in which a judgment of a court is to be dealt with and how a judgment is to be criticized if it deserves such criticism. They can read the judgment and criticize the judgment if they want and of course not the judges who wrote the judgment. ...If the lawyers started to comment about a judgment without reading a judgment, nobody can blame the poor citizens who make comments about judgment and judges on social media," the Court said in its order..The Judge noted that most of the criticism against the movie seemed to come from persons who had not watched the movie in its entirety, when he made the allegory to lawyers criticising judgments of the Court without reading the same in its entirety."Similarly when a Court delivers a judgment in a case, even before the judgment reaches the public, the criticism starts. It is surprising to see that, few lawyers are making comments about judgments of court of law even without reading the judgments. Some of the lawyers will start to comment about a judgment delivered by a court at 10.15 am or at 11 am immediately after the judgment is pronounced," the single-Judge said. .The Court made its clear that its comments are not towards the Bar as a whole but rather towards a small section of lawyers, and that all members of the Bar must faithfully fulfill their role as mouthpieces of the judiciary. "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. As I said earlier, the Bench and bar are two sides of a coin. The lawyers should be the mouthpiece of the judiciary. 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," the order noted..The behavior of social media denizens was also highlighted by the Court in its judgement. Citizens criticising a movie or any work of art have a duty to do their due diligence and watch the same before exercising their right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, the Court said."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 noted as it observed that a new phrase "Churuli Language" was used widely on social media..The plea before the Court had sought the removal of Malayalam movie Churuli, directed by Lijo Jose Pellissery, from the OTT platform SonyLiv for its alleged excessive use of foul language. .The Court had previously remarked that it cannot interfere with the artistic freedom of a film-maker unless there is any violation of laws. It had said that it would be beneficial if a team of police officers from the State Police watches the movie to ascertain if there are any such violations. However, the same was misinterpreted by many on social media, the Court noted. "This Court never directed the Police to find out whether foul or obscene language is used in "Churuli" film. The contents is correctly published in print and visual media. But 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," the Court said. The State Police team had found no violations of any existing statutes, and no criminal offence. .The Court found that the pleadings in the writ petition were vague, and that as per the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines) Rules, 2021, the petitioner had an effective alternative remedy of grievance redressal. Therefore, it dismissed the petition..[Read Judgment]