A formal complaint has been lodged with the National Investigation Agency (NIA) against the makers of the recently released Malayalam film Empuraan or L2. The complaint, filed by Sarath Edathil, a retired naval officer from Palakkad, Kerala, accuses the film of defaming the NIA, inciting communal hatred, promoting anti-national sentiments, and glorifying terrorism. The film Empuraan, directed by actor-filmmaker Prithviraj Sukumaran and scripted by Murali Gopy, was released worldwide on March 27, 2025, in multiple languages. However, concerns have been raised regarding its content, which allegedly portrays a distorted narrative, maligning national institutions and posing a threat to India’s security and social harmony.
The complaint asserts that the film Empuraan features a character named ‘Zayed Masood,’ played by Prithviraj, who bears a striking resemblance to Masood Azhar, the founder of the Pakistan-based terror outfit Jaish-e-Mohammed. The film Empuraan allegedly depicts the character receiving training in a JeM camp and justifies terrorism as a means of revenge for communal violence. Furthermore, Arabic and Urdu background songs reportedly amplify the radical undertones, making terrorism appear as an act of justified vengeance.
The complainant has raised concerns over the film’s explicit mention of the NIA and its alleged misrepresentation as a corrupt and power-abusing institution. The film Empuraan also reportedly features visuals of NIA officers, their vehicles, and official emblems, creating an impression of real-life involvement. Additionally, the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) has been allegedly portrayed in a negative light, potentially harming public trust in law enforcement agencies.
According to the complaint, the film Empuraan presents a one-sided narrative of the 2002 post-Godhra riots, depicting Hindus as aggressors and Muslims as perpetual victims. This selective portrayal, the complaint argues, distorts historical facts and risks inciting communal tensions. The complainant alleges that the film’s screenplay subtly encourages a communal backlash against the state, fueling divisive sentiments.
A particular scene in the film has drawn serious criticism, where a character suggests that Kerala’s long coastline and international airports can facilitate drug trafficking. Another controversial line in the movie reportedly threatens to bomb the Mullaperiyar Dam if the Central Home Minister intervenes in a conflict. Such dialogues, the complaint states, could indirectly provide ideas to extremist groups, endangering public safety and national security.
A scene in the Movie Empuraan showing the brutal killing of an Intelligence Bureau officer has been flagged as a dangerous precedent, allegedly glorifying violence against government officials. The complainant argues that this portrayal crosses the line of artistic freedom and amounts to incitement to violence. The complaint also calls for an investigation into the film’s financial sources. Allegations have been made regarding the involvement of foreign entities and potential illicit funding, demanding scrutiny by relevant authorities.
The complainant has urged the NIA to investigate the matter under several sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Samhita (BNS), including defamation of a government institution, conspiracy against the state, promoting enmity between groups, and inciting public mischief. Additionally, the provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and the Cinematograph Act, 1952, have been cited in the request for action.
The complainant requested that an immediate investigation be initiated under the following Bharatiya Nyaya Samhita (BNS) sections and relevant provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and the Information Technology Act:
1. BNS Section 353 (Defamation of a Group or Institution of the state)
2. BNS Section 148 (Conspiracy to commit offences against the state)
3. BNS Section 196 (Promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, etc.)
4. BNS Section 299 (Deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings)
5. BNS Section 353 (Statements conducing to public mischief)
6. Relevant sections of the UAPA, for depiction and glorification of terrorist activities
7. Relevant sections of the Cinematograph Act, 1952, for objectionable content
As of now, neither Prithviraj Sukumaran nor the film’s production team has issued a statement regarding the allegations. The controversy has sparked heated debates among film critics, political analysts, and the general public about the fine line between artistic expression and national security concerns. The NIA is yet to confirm whether it will launch an official probe into the allegations. If pursued, this case could set a significant precedent for the regulation of politically sensitive content in Indian cinema.
Comments