Art imitates life? Kerala High Court asks whether action movies really inspire violence

The Kerala High Court on Tuesday asked to what extent the State can regulate the portrayal of violence in the media including movies and whether such depictions on screen are merely a reflection of the reality in society [Navas A @ Paichira Navas v State Kerala and connected cases].The Bench of Justice AK Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice CS Sudha was hearing the cases arising out the Hema Committee Report, which pertains to the exploitation of women in the Malayalam film industry.After the counsel representing the Kerala Women's Commission raised the issue of violence in cinema, Justice Nambiar acknowledged that portrayal of violence has an impact on people due to its glorification."No doubt that violence in films, visual media etc. can have undesirable effects on the people because it can be seen as encouraging them because you glorify this violence. But on the other hand, you have the freedom of speech and expression and to what extent will that go, it will again depend on what is public morality [and] what is constitutional morality," the judge said.However, the Court also asked whether it could be the opposite - that movies are merely portraying what is already a reality. "One has to see the development of the law in this subject and what society considers to be immoral or moral. Is too much of violence or glorifying of violence desirable or is it just them telling us what's happening in society today. One must consider whether movies are merely reflecting the violence in society," Justice Nambiar stated. It said that such aspects must be considered when enacting the propose law to tackle harassment on the sets of movies."Consider all such materials when you bring in the draft legislation," the Bench remarked.The Court also asked the Women's Commission to look into the extent of State interference that is permissible. "This is a matter for an interesting study. What is the level of interference that you can expect from a State? These are matters which must come from within, how do you control this? You have the censor board and things but that's based on a different yardstick. You are appearing for Women's Commission, please look into these aspects also," the judge said..During the hearing today, the Court also discussed the implications of the Supreme Court's recent ruling, allowing police investigations based on witness statements recorded before the Committee.Advocate General Gopalakrishna Kurup informed the Court about the Supreme Court's refusal to halt the Special Investigation Team (SIT) inquiry into the matter..Justice Nambiar clarified that the SIT was not going to compel any victim to provide statements and that those receiving notices can inform the authorities, if they do not wish to participate in the investigation..Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, representing Women in Cinema Collective (WCC), submitted that some victims had received notices from the SIT but were unwilling to come forward at this stage.In response, the Court made it clear that anyone feeling harassed or compelled by the SIT can directly approach the High Court for relief.The Court added that if a person receives a summons under Section 183 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) (procedure for witness examination), they can communicate their unwillingness to cooperate. However, repeated notices may be sent if there is no response to confirm their position..Meanwhile, counsel Sandhya Raju highlighted gender bullying issues in sectors like the tourism industry.Considering the scope of the draft legislation, the Court said the proposed law was expected to extend beyond the entertainment industry. It then instructed the Amicus Curiae to examine all relevant materials before finalising the draft legislation. However, it was also clarified that the Court's aim is to assist the State in formulating a comprehensive law rather than forcing it on the authorities..The matter will be taken up for hearing again on April 4..[Read Live Coverage]