Kerala police have initiated legal action against the individuals responsible for creating a widely circulated parody song related to the Sabarimala temple. The controversial track, which became a significant talking point during the recent local body election campaign, has now resulted in a formal complaint.
Viral Song Sparks Political Controversy
The parody song in question, titled 'Pottiye kettiye, Swarnam chembayi mattiye', spread rapidly across social media platforms and messaging apps. Its popularity surged when the Congress-led United Democratic Front (UDF) incorporated it into their campaign strategy for the local body elections held recently. The content of the song, which humorously critiques aspects of the Sabarimala issue, touched a nerve in the politically sensitive state.
Formal Complaint and Legal Proceedings
Authorities have officially filed a police case targeting the makers of the song. The complaint, registered on 17 December 2025, alleges that the content is inflammatory and could disturb communal harmony. While the specific sections of the law under which the case has been filed were not detailed in the initial report, such actions typically involve charges related to defamation, promoting enmity, or outraging religious sentiments.
Journalist Arjun Raghunath was among the first to report on the development, highlighting the ongoing tension between political expression and legal boundaries in Kerala. The case underscores the delicate balance between satire, political campaigning, and perceived offenses in matters of faith.
Political Repercussions and Public Reaction
The use of the song by a major political coalition like the UDF has amplified its impact and the subsequent backlash. This incident is likely to fuel further debate on the limits of political satire and the weaponization of cultural and religious symbols during elections in India. The filing of the police case marks a significant escalation, moving the issue from the political arena into the judicial sphere.
Public reaction has been divided, with some viewing the case as a necessary step to curb disrespectful commentary, while others see it as an attempt to stifle creative expression and political criticism. The development is being closely watched as it sets a potential precedent for how similar content might be handled in the future.
