The Kerala High Court is examining whether film shootings should be allowed in reserved forest areas, prompted by a public interest litigation filed by Animal Legal Force Integration. The petition was triggered by a Malayalam movie shoot that allegedly caused environmental damage within a reserved forest in Kasaragod. Soil was reportedly dumped in a fragile forest zone, raising concerns about ecological disruption. The petitioner argued that such shoots, even with permissions, can severely harm the delicate ecosystems and violate forest conservation principles. The case centers on the balance between allowing creative commercial activity and maintaining the sanctity of ecologically protected areas.
In its defense, the state forest department submitted that permissions for film shoots are regulated through a fee-based system, with different charges for commercial films, documentaries, and educational content. They explained that security deposits are collected and returned post-inspection if no damage is found. However, the Court expressed doubts about whether merely imposing fees suffices to permit such potentially disruptive activities in reserved forests. It observed that these protected areas enjoy special legal status, and any non-forest activity, such as film shooting, requires rigorous environmental vetting and, in many cases, central government clearance.
The Court was particularly concerned that the current permissions may be limited to financial procedures without substantial ecological assessments. It noted that activities within reserved forests must align with the Indian Forest Act and Forest Conservation Act, which demand central clearance and strict limitations. The bench questioned whether the government’s existing policies considered the ecological impact of such shoots and whether the permissions granted were legally and environmentally sustainable. It asked the state to clarify if it had a formal policy to balance conservation and commercial needs, or if the practice was ad hoc and fee-driven.
In this context, the Court raised a broader question about whether any commercial filming should be permitted within reserved forests at all. These areas are vital ecological zones that support fragile wildlife and diverse flora and fauna, and even temporary human intervention can destabilize their delicate balance. The Court was particularly mindful of the impact on soil, vegetation, hydrology, and animal movement. It suggested that allowing commercial activity for entertainment could have long-term ecological consequences that may not be reversible. The example of the "Unda" film shoot, where soil was dumped to create set infrastructure, served as a stark reminder of such risks.
The Court appointed advocate Manu Vyasan Peter as amicus curiae to assist in analyzing the broader implications and provide independent legal and environmental perspectives. It also directed the state to file an affidavit clarifying whether it had evaluated the ecological and legal aspects of granting such permissions and whether an overarching policy exists. This marks a shift from a narrow view of procedural compliance to a more holistic consideration of environmental impact. The Court signaled that if the state lacks a comprehensive regulatory framework, then film shoots in reserved forests may have to be re-evaluated altogether.
The larger legal framework, including various judgments by the Supreme Court, makes it clear that reserved forests are not to be used for any non-forest purpose unless stringent conditions are met. The Forest Conservation Act mandates prior approval from the central government, even for temporary activities, and judicial interpretations have reinforced that commercial purposes like tourism or filming fall within this definition. Therefore, allowing filming through mere state-level permissions and fee collections could potentially violate national forest laws, prompting judicial scrutiny.
The state’s argument that it is taking precautionary measures by collecting fees and security deposits was seen as insufficient. The Court emphasized that financial instruments do not replace ecological safeguards or legal authorizations. It noted that forest ecosystems cannot be measured in monetary terms and that any damage caused may not be repairable despite the collection of security money. The Court also pointed out that the legal sanctity of reserved forests demands that every decision made regarding their use be backed by scientific evaluation, environmental clearance, and legal justification—not just administrative orders and fee notifications.
Environmental experts and legal scholars have observed that film shoots involve more than just a camera crew; they often include transportation of heavy equipment, lighting setups, generator use, temporary construction, and the presence of large teams—all of which have direct and indirect ecological consequences. Disturbances in sound levels, chemical runoff, and waste management are all concerns, particularly in sensitive ecosystems where even minor changes can affect flora and fauna survival. The Kerala High Court’s inquiry is, therefore, an important judicial intervention in ensuring that economic or cultural activities do not come at the cost of environmental degradation.
The Court’s pointed question—whether reserved forests should be kept out of bounds entirely for film shoots—signals its intent to consider a complete ban unless compelling justification is presented. It also invites the possibility of developing a national-level guideline or judicial framework to govern such issues uniformly across states. If the state is unable to defend its practices with credible environmental assessments and legal support, the verdict may set a precedent for limiting commercial access to forest areas across India. This could trigger revisions in state forest policies, encouraging clearer distinctions between acceptable and impermissible uses.
The matter also touches on interdepartmental coordination. Permissions for filming often involve not just the forest department but also cultural and tourism departments. The lack of a unified policy may lead to overlapping or contradictory approvals, weakening enforcement and exposing protected zones to risks. The Court’s intervention may push the state to develop an integrated approval mechanism involving environmental experts, forest officials, legal consultants, and conservationists to review each application on a case-by-case basis.
While the film industry may argue that filming in natural forests enhances storytelling and promotes regional landscapes, the judiciary is poised to ensure that no amount of artistic or commercial benefit justifies ecological harm. The principle of intergenerational equity—preserving natural resources for future generations—remains a core judicial philosophy in environmental jurisprudence. It is likely that any eventual policy the state develops would prioritize low-impact activities and explicitly ban commercial shoots in ecologically critical or endangered zones.
The Kerala High Court’s inquiry fits within a wider pattern of judicial activism in favor of environmental conservation. Across India, courts have intervened to halt unauthorized construction, mining, deforestation, and pollution in ecologically sensitive areas. By scrutinizing the implications of even culturally accepted activities like film-making, the judiciary reinforces the idea that every form of human intervention must be subject to environmental accountability. It promotes a culture where policy decisions are backed not just by economics or popularity, but by sustainability and legal compliance.
As the case proceeds, the state’s next affidavit and the amicus curiae’s report will play a crucial role in determining the future of film shoots in forested areas. Depending on the submissions, the Court could issue binding guidelines, direct the formulation of new regulatory norms, or issue interim measures restricting shoots in sensitive areas. This case may well set a national precedent and influence how India balances its booming media industry with its urgent environmental obligations.
The issue raised by the Kerala High Court does not question the value of cinema but insists that creative expression must not become a pathway to environmental compromise. It challenges both the state and the public to rethink what is permissible when it comes to using shared ecological assets for private or commercial gain. The debate it has sparked may lead to a new chapter in forest governance, where transparency, ecological literacy, and legal adherence are paramount.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.