Judicially trained minds disregard fiction; film releases cannot be stalled on apprehension of trial prejudice.

The petitioner is the father of an accused currently facing trial in the "Venjaramoodu mass murder case," involving multiple homicides

The petitioner sought to restrain the release and broadcast of the Malayalam film Kaalam Paranja Kadha, alleging it is based entirely on the pending criminal case against his son

He contended that the release would lead to a "trial by media," prejudice witnesses, and infringe upon the accused’s right to a fair trial

Respondents 5 and 6 (Producer and Director) denied the allegations, asserting the film is a fictional work aimed at creating awareness about drug abuse

The Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) Revising Committee had already granted the film a "UA16+" certificate following certain modifications

The Court applied the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, noting that restrictions must fall strictly within Article 19(2)

It relied on Zee News v. Navjot Sandhu to establish that a judicially trained mind is not swayed by media depictions

It further cited Nachiketa Walhekar v. CBFC, which held that the rights of an expressive mind should not be "crucified" by implication

and Raj Kapur v. Laxman, which clarified that censorship must be based on public order, decency, or morality rather than "moral tailoring"

Finally, the Court applied the "reasonable person" standard from Catholic Congress v. Juby Thomas, asserting that a movie's impact must be judged from the perspective of an ordinary person of reasonable intelligence, not a hypersensitive individual

The Court found the petitioner’s allegations to be based on mere assumption and social media hearsay, noting that the petitioner had not actually viewed the film

The Court reasoned that even if a film is inspired by real-life crimes, it constitutes a work of art and cannot be stalled on the supposition that it will affect a trial

Crucially, the Court emphasized that a trial is presided over by a "judicially trained person" who appreciates evidence based on settled legal principles rather than cinematic fiction

It held that the "path of judicial decision making" is distinct from the influence of public opinion or media narratives

Furthermore, since the CBFC—a statutory body—had already screened and certified the film, the Court found no grounds to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to interfere with the release

The Court affirmed that the judicial system is robust enough to remain uninfluenced by artistic depictions and that the filmmaker's right to expression cannot be stifled based on the apprehensions of a hypersensitive mind

The prayer for a stay on the release of Kaalam Paranja Kadha was denied