Kochi, August 7, 2025

In a relief to Malayalam actor Shwetha Menon, the Kerala High Court has stayed further proceedings in a case accusing her of involvement in the production and circulation of alleged obscene content in films and advertisements. The stay was granted by Justice V.G. Arun, who found merit in the actor’s argument that due legal process had not been followed before lodging the FIR.

 

The High Court pointed out that no preliminary report was sought by the Magistrate as required under Section 175(3) of the CrPC, before directing the registration of the FIR. Justice Arun, in his interim order, also instructed the Registry to clarify whether the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam, had received such a preliminary report prior to passing directions for FIR registration.

 

The stay order effectively pauses the probe into the FIR registered by the Ernakulam Central Police, giving the actor temporary relief while the procedural aspects of the case are scrutinized.

 

The FIR was based on a complaint by Martin Menachery, who alleged that several scenes from Shwetha Menon’s films including Rathinirvedham, Kalimannu, and Paleri Manikyam as well as a condom advertisement, were obscene in nature and were being distributed for profit.

 

He claimed these visuals violated morality standards and constituted offences under:

• Section 67A of the Information Technology Act (publishing or transmitting sexually explicit material),

• Sections 3 and 5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act.

 

The case, registered as Crime No. 1075/2025, drew widespread attention due to the nature of the allegations and the public profile of the actor involved.

 

Shwetha Menon, through her counsel, argued that the films in question were all cleared by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) and had even earned national and state recognition. She emphasized that the content was part of mainstream cinema and should not be mischaracterized as obscene.

 

The petition claimed the FIR was “politically motivated,” especially since it was filed around the time she was contesting elections to the executive body of AMMA (Association of Malayalam Movie Artists). She contended that the complaint was a deliberate misuse of the legal process to damage her reputation and career.

 

• Legal Scrutiny of Cinema: The FIR raises questions on how art and film are judged through the lens of obscenity laws and whether CBFC-certified content can be the basis of criminal action.

• Procedure vs. Pressure: The High Court’s observation on procedural irregularities reflects the importance of following legal safeguards before curbing artistic expression.

• Reputation at Stake: The case also highlights the vulnerability of public figures to misuse of criminal laws in politically or personally sensitive moments.