Kerala High Court: In a petition seeking to restrain the release of a web series titled “Anali” on the streaming platform JioHotstar, the petitioner contended that the series was inspired by incidents related to the criminal proceedings in which she is currently incarcerated in connection with the Koodathayi murders, arguing that the release would influence public perception and prejudice the ongoing criminal process. However, a Single Judge Bench of Bechu Kurian Thomas, J., declined to restrain the release of the web series, holding that, since her representation was already rejected by the competent authority, she had an alternate remedy under Rule 12, Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 (IT Rules).
The dispute arose when the petitioner objected to a web series “Anali” scheduled for release on JioHotstar. She believed that the content was substantially inspired from incidents connected to Koodathayi murders for which she was lodged in prison. According to her, the series would malign her, create prejudice in public opinion, and adversely affect prospects related to her conviction. She submitted a representation before the Ministry of Information & Broadcasting, which in turn forwarded it to the grievance cell of JioHotstar, which rejected her representation. The writ petition was filed during the pendency of the representation seeking to restrain the release, streaming, broadcasting, or promotion of a web series titled “Anali” on JioHotstar.
The Court observed that since the petitioner’s representation was rejected, she had a specific remedy under Rule 12, IT Rules. The Court highlighted that when such an alternative remedy was available, especially on account of the nature of contentions urged, it was not appropriate to entertain the writ petition.
Consequently, the Court dismissed the writ petition, while reserving the liberty of the petitioner to pursue her appellate remedy under Rule 12, IT Rules and directing that if such an appeal is filed, orders shall be passed without undue delay.
[Jollyamma Joseph v. Jiohotstar (P) Ltd., WP(C) No. 47510 of 2025, decided on 17-3-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: K.P. Prasanth, P.S. Biju, T.A. Ajmal Hussain, K.S. Stejo, Arunraj S., Hijas T.T., Sunitha K.G., Anitha V.A., Sreelakshmi K., Advocates.
For the Respondents: O.M. Shalina, Deputy Solicitor General Of India, Santhosh Mathew (Sr.), Mathew Nevin Thomas, Arun Thomas, Veena Raveendran, Karthika Maria, Shinto Mathew Abraham, Leah Rachel Ninan, Karthik Rajagopal, Kurian Antony Mathew, Aparnna S., Arun Joseph Mathew, Noel Ninan Ninan, Adeen Nazar, Rohan Mathew, Saiby Jose Kidangoor, Benny Antony Parel, Pramitha Augustine, Afsana Khan, Sreeraj S. Rajaram, Sneha J., Adarsh Padmanabhan, Amal Dileep, Anna Paul, Victor Joseph, Advocates.