On February 3, 2026, the Kerala High Court sought the stand of both the central and state governments on a plea opposing the public screening of a movie reportedly based on the infamous Venjaramoodu mass murder. Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas issued notices to the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC), state police, and the film's director, Prasad Nooranad. The matter has been scheduled for further hearing on February 5, 2026, where the court will evaluate the implications of the film's content on the ongoing criminal trial.
The petitioner, Abdal Rahim H, is the father of the primary accused, A R Afan, who was arrested in 2025 for allegedly murdering multiple family members in Thiruvananthapuram. The plea contends that the release of this film could lead to an unfair "media trial" that may influence witnesses and prejudice the legal proceedings. The incident, which occurred on February 24, 2025, shocked the state as it involved the tragic deaths of four individuals, with the accused also attempting to kill his mother, who survived with injuries.
- Right to Fair Trial — The petitioner argues that the film could undermine the ongoing legal process.
- Family Reputation at Stake — The plea highlights potential irreparable damage to the dignity of the family.
- Call for Restraint on Promotions — The court has been asked to halt all promotional activities related to the movie.
Legal experts believe that the Kerala High Court will closely examine whether the film's content interferes with the administration of justice. The petitioner has specifically requested restrictions on any publication or content related to the murder case, emphasizing the need for a fair trial free from external influences. The upcoming court decision will determine if the cinematic portrayal of this tragic event can proceed to theaters amidst ongoing legal challenges.
The Venjaramoodu incident has not only raised significant legal questions but has also sparked debates about the ethics of dramatizing real-life crimes in cinema. As the court deliberates, the balance between artistic expression and the right to a fair trial remains a critical concern. The outcome of this case could set a precedent for future films that draw upon sensitive real-life events, highlighting the need for responsible storytelling in the film industry.
