Kochi, Feb 10 (PTI) The Kerala High Court on Thursday dismissed a plea seeking removal of Malayalam mystery horror film "Churuli" from OTT platform Sony LIV, saying the intention behind filing of the petition was "only publicity". Justice P V Kunhikrishnan said if courts start to interfere with exhibition of films merely because some dialogues are obscene or use foul language, "there will be no end to it". "A film is an exhibition of a story by the filmmaker. He is entitled to use his artistic freedom. There is no compulsion to view this film by each and every citizen of this country. "Moreover, the film in question was uploaded to OTT platforms. In OTT platform, the view is restricted to the subscribers of the 2nd respondent (Sony LIV). In such circumstances, this Court can not direct the 2nd respondent to remove the movie from the OTT platform," the high court said in the 77-page judgement dismissing the petition. The court further said in the instant matter, there were no proper pleadings, the reliefs sought were vague and even the relevant rules applicable to movies on OTT platforms were not referred to in the petition by Peggy Fen, a lawyer. "A reading of the writ petition itself will show that the intention of the petitioner is only publicity. Simply making an observation that the movie contains foul language or obscene language, this Court cannot direct to remove the movie from OTT platform. I have a strong doubt that the petitioner herself has not seen the movie in full with patience before filing this writ petition," Justice Kunhikrishnan said. Referring to various Supreme Court decisions on what constitutes obscenity or vulgarity in movie scenes or dialogues, the high court said the apex court has held that a film has to be assessed in its entirety before arriving at a finding. "The film is to be considered as a whole in a fair, free and liberal spirit without dwelling too much upon isolated dialogues or strong words used in the film here and there. The film is a creation of an artist. "The filmmaker is trying to depict a story and the only point to be looked into is whether the dialogues in the film are within the four corners of the story and whether the dialogues in the movie are relevant in the facts and circumstances of that story," the court said. It said that in the instant case, "characters in the movie due to their living conditions and circumstances are forced to speak in rough and tough language with expletives and cuss words in their day to day interactions". The court further said persons living in such conditions, as shown in the film, cannot be expected to speak in a decent language used by people residing in a normal area. It also said that "nobody can dictate a filmmaker to use only decent language in his film and it is his artistic discretion to choose the language but of course with reasonable restrictions mentioned in Article 19(2) of the constitution". The court also noted that a report submitted by a special team of police, after watching the movie, stated there was no statutory violation of any law and no criminal offence was made out. Regarding the comments about the film on social media, the court said it was sure that most of the people commenting against the movie have not seen it in full. "There is indeed freedom of speech and expression to every citizen as per Article 19 (1)(a) of the Constitution of India. But the above types of critics will be doing an injustice to a filmmaker by making comments about a film and making it an unpopular one without watching his movie in full," the court said. It further said that making comments against a film, making it unpopular, without watching the same will hurt the filmmakers and artists who are also human beings. "Their work may be a good artistic creation or sometimes it may not be a good work. But before making comments against it or in favour of it, it is the duty of the citizens to watch their creation. "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 said. It directed the state"s police chief to take steps for protecting the artistic freedom of a filmmaker by initiating appropriate proceedings, including criminal cases, if any offence is made out in such situations. The petitioner had contended that there was an "overdose of foul language" in the film and therefore, it should be removed from the OTT platform "as expeditiously as possible". The petition had contended that the film "uses filthy words lavishly without any curtain which outrages the modesty of women and children". It had also contended that the movie did not adhere to censor board rules and regulations and did not display any statutory warning on the screen when showing characters using alcohol or smoking as is mandatory under the law. The Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC), represented by Additional Advocate General Grashious Kuriakose, had told the court that the movie was cleared for public viewing with an "A" certification and related warnings. The Board had also told the court that an uncensored version of the movie was shown on the OTT platform. PTI HMP HDA HDA