Kerala Opposition Leader Challenges Police Orders on Parody Song Removal

In a bold move, V D Satheesan, the opposition leader in Kerala, has written to Meta opposing police directives to remove the parody song 'Pottiye Kettiye' from social media. He argues that such actions infringe upon fundamental rights and lack judicial backing. The song, linked to an alleged gold theft at the Sabarimala temple, has sparked a debate on freedom of expression. Satheesan emphasizes that parody and satire are protected forms of expression and any restrictions must follow due legal process. This controversy raises important questions about artistic freedom in a democratic society.

By Narendra Chaudhary Dec 19, 2025, 20:49 IST

Opposition Leader's Stand Against Police Directives

V D Satheesan, the leader of the opposition in the Kerala Assembly, has expressed his dissent against police directives that requested the removal of the parody song 'Pottiye Kettiye' from social media platforms. In a letter addressed to Meta, the parent company of Facebook, Satheesan argued that removing the song without a court order would infringe upon fundamental rights.

In his correspondence, he highlighted reports indicating that the Kerala state police, along with the Indian government, had contacted Meta and other social media platforms to request the removal of links to the song, which has been circulating online in connection with an alleged gold theft at the Sabarimala temple in Kerala.

Satheesan pointed out that the Thiruvananthapuram cyber police have initiated a case regarding the creation and dissemination of this parody song. He emphasized that there is currently no judicial ruling or legal order mandating the removal of this content, which he believes violates the right to freedom of expression.

The letter further stated, "It is crucial to note that there has been no judicial decision, court order, or statutory directive to remove this content. The Supreme Court of India has consistently held that the right to freedom of expression cannot be curtailed unless a clear and legally established violation of the law is proven."

He argued that parody and satire are protected forms of expression, and any restrictions should be enforced only through legally and judicially sanctioned means. The letter concluded by asserting that in a democratic society governed by the rule of law, any restrictions on expression, particularly on artistic expressions like parody or satire, must adhere to due process.