‘Case has no legal ground’: Experts question FIR against actor Shwetha Menon

Follow TNM's WhatsApp channel for news updates and story links.

LEGAL experts have called the registration of a First Information Report (FIR) against actor Shwetha Menon under charges relating to alleged obscene content in films and advertisements “procedurally flawed” and lacking in merit.

Though the Kerala High Court stayed the criminal proceedings against her on Thursday, August 7, the question remains as to why the FIR was registered without a preliminary inquiry.

Shwetha Menon is a Malayalam actress known for taking up sensuous and provocative roles that often stirred public debate, such as her performances in Rathinirvedam (2011), Paleri Manikyam (2009) and Kalimannu (2013). 

An FIR was filed at the Ernakulam Central Police Station on August 6, accusing Shwetha of performing in “vulgar and nude” scenes for commercial gain, disseminating explicit content through online platforms, and exploiting her “infamous image” to market sexual content. The complaint also references her roles in films.

Surprisingly, the police have charged her under stringent sections of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act that deal with prostitution and holding a brothel.

The High Court stayed the case observing that the case was filed within a short period of time and that there is no prima facie case to prove that an inquiry took place to verify the veracity of the complaint.

The case was done based on a complaint filed by a man named Martin Menachery, who claimed to have seen clips of Shwetha’s movies on porn sites. 

Martin’s complaint alleged that Shwetha has made “crores in revenue” from such content. These claims, however, remain unverified and are based largely on online search results and publicly circulated media. He approached a Chief Judicial Magistrate Court with his complaint and the court in turn asked the police to file an FIR. 

Legal experts have raised serious concerns over both the content and process of registering the case.  

Advocate Harish Vasudevan, legal commentator, said that since Shwetha Menon is an actor, it is the film certification board that can determine whether her content violates legal standards. “Once a film is certified, there is a statutory presumption that it does not contain impermissible content. If it did, it wouldn’t have been certified in the first place,” Harish said.

On the allegations that Shwetha marketed herself or her work through adult platforms, Harish was blunt: “There is no prima facie case that she is selling sex or nudity, or that she is operating pornographic websites. These are vague and speculative claims.”

Advocate Asha Unnithan, a legal expert, also questioned the manner in which the Magistrate forwarded the complaint: “This is a private complaint, and as per the Bharatiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) and settled Supreme Court precedent, there must be an application of judicial mind by the Magistrate before forwarding such a complaint to the police.”

She further explained, “The Magistrate cannot just forward the case. In this case, there was no examination of the complainant, no preliminary inquiry, just a mechanical order. That is not legally permissible.”

Advocate Asha also called the invocation of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act “absurd” in this context. “That law exists to combat actual cases of trafficking, not fictional performances in cinema. This is a misuse of serious legal provisions.”

She added that it was a gross error on part of the police officer who lodged the FIR under those sections, without conducting a preliminary enquiry.

Speaking to TNM, director Prakash Bare said, “This is a fake case. Even when we talk about censorship, awards, or politicisation, these claims are saying that these scenes weren’t censored or are additional. This is just an attack on Shwetha's character.”

He also spoke about the fact that the certification process for films is already stringent. “Some scenes may be erotic, some may be seen as controversial or derogatory, but that doesn't make them illegal. Filmmakers have artistic freedom. Just because something is erotic doesn’t mean it is criminal.”

The complaint cites statements allegedly made by Shwetha in an interview, including a quote: “I am the hottest and sexiest woman in the world.” It also claims that a video featuring Shwetha and a Kamasutra condom received over 300 million views online.

The timing of the FIR has also raised eyebrows. Shwetha is currently contesting for the post of president of the Association of Malayalam Movie Artistes (AMMA), with elections scheduled for August 15.

Advocate Harish called the FIR against Shwetha “an old issue in a new bottle,” raising serious concerns about the timing and intent of the complaint. “This is an issue that did not exist when the films were released or circulated. There’s no new cause of action. The suspicion lies in the timing,” he said. Harish questioned why the Magistrate failed to ask the most basic question — why the complaint is being made now — especially since the content has been publicly available for years.

Citing Section 223 of the BNSS, which deals with procedural fairness before passing judicial orders, Harish stated that the law prohibits the Magistrate from passing any orders without giving an opportunity of hearing for the de facto complainant.

“Instead, the Magistrate acted like a post office, simply forwarding the complaint to the police without applying any judicial mind.”

Harish also addressed the potential electoral implications for Shwetha in AMMA.

“According to AMMA rules, only if a member is facing a pending criminal case can they be barred from contesting elections. An FIR is merely a starting point of an enquiry to know whether the complaint is genuine or not. As per Supreme Court precedents, an FIR just indicates that someone informed the police of a cognisable offence. Only a charge sheet establishes a pending criminal case or an accusation of a crime,” he clarified. 

“In this case, the FIR alone should not prevent her from contesting.”

Shwetha had moved the Kerala High Court on August 7 seeking to quash the FIR registered against her, calling the allegations “unfounded, baseless and absurd.” Her counsel argued that the complaint lacks the basic legal ingredients required to invoke the said sections in the FIR, noting that even if the accusations are accepted at face value, “none of the offences alleged are prima facie attracted.” 

She pointed out that the materials cited — including films like Rathinirvedam, Paleri Manikyam, and Kalimannu, and a condom advertisement — were all certified by the Censor Board and have been in the public domain for years. “It is insensitive, imprudent and myopic to assume that appearing as an artist in such works is objectionable, much less obscene,” the petition states.

The petition strongly criticises the Magistrate’s decision to refer the complaint to the police without a preliminary judicial inquiry, calling it a “grave non-application of mind.” Citing Section 175(3) of the BNSS, which mandates an enquiry and submission before ordering investigation, she argued that the court failed to meet the procedural safeguards now required by law. 

“The complaint makes a scandalous allegation of the petitioner being privy to a sex and drug racket… without any supporting material whatsoever,” the petition states, adding that such reckless accusations should be “dealt with iron hands.”

She also questioned the timing and motive behind the complaint, pointing out that the FIR was registered just days after she submitted her nomination for the AMMA presidential election on July 24. “It is pellucid that the allegations are raised with the sole intent of spiting the petitioner,” the plea says, adding that the proceedings, if allowed to continue, would amount to an abuse of court process and inflict “irreparable injury and serious prejudice” on her personal and professional life.