The Kerala High Court on Tuesday debated how much the State can regulate violent content in films and media and whether such portrayals merely reflect real-life violence in society.
A bench of Justice AK Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice CS Sudha was hearing cases related to the Hema Committee Report, which focuses on the exploitation of women in the Malayalam film industry.
Violence In Films
The discussion began after the Kerala Women’s Commission raised concerns about violent depictions in cinema. Justice Nambiar acknowledged that glorification of violence can have a negative impact on society.
There is no doubt that violence in films and media can negatively influence people. But at the same time, freedom of speech and expression must be considered. The extent of regulation depends on public and constitutional morality,” he observed.
The Court also questioned whether films are merely reflecting the violence already present in society.
Is excessive violence in films harmful, or are they just portraying the reality of today’s society? Justice Nambiar asked.
The Court emphasized that such concerns should be considered when drafting new laws to prevent harassment on movie sets.
The Court directed the Kerala Women’s Commission to study how much the State can interfere in film content regulation.
“This is an important issue for study. How much control can the State exercise? Some matters must change from within society. The Censor Board operates under a different standard. Since you represent the Women’s Commission, please look into these aspects,” the Court stated.
Court’s Ruling
The court also discussed the Supreme Court’s recent ruling, which allows police investigations based on witness statements recorded before the Hema Committee.
Advocate General Gopalakrishna Kurup informed the Court that the Supreme Court had refused to halt the Special Investigation Team (SIT) inquiry into the matter.
Justice Nambiar clarified that the SIT will not force any victim to provide statements. Anyone receiving a notice can inform authorities if they do not wish to participate.
Protection For Victims In Investigation
Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, representing Women in Cinema Collective (WCC), stated that some victims had received SIT notices but were not willing to come forward at this stage.
The Court assured that anyone feeling pressured by the SIT can approach the High Court for relief.
If a person receives a summons under Section 183 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) (witness examination procedure), they can inform authorities of their unwillingness to cooperate. However, if there is no response, repeated notices may be sent to confirm their position.
Expanding Scope Of Proposed Law
During the hearing, advocate Sandhya Raju highlighted gender bullying issues in other industries like tourism.
The Court observed that the new legislation should not be limited to the entertainment industry but should address broader workplace harassment concerns.
The Amicus Curiae has been asked to examine all relevant materials before finalizing the draft legislation.
The Court clarified that its role is to assist the State in formulating a comprehensive law, not impose decisions on authorities.
The matter is scheduled for further hearing on April 4.
Read More: Supreme Court, Delhi High Court, States High Court, International
