Producer of The Kerala Story 2: Goes Beyond has objected to the locus standi of the petitioners who have moved pleas before the Kerala High Court challenging the censor certification granted to the film, over alleged defamation of the State.
The senior counsel appearing for the producer submitted before Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas that the pleas are in the nature of public interest and the petitioners do not have any individual grievance. He contended that the pleadings raised by the petitioners are such that they are saying that their dignity is affected because the dignity of Kerala is affected.
Senior Advocate S. Sreekumar argued,
“They are seeking to quash the certification granted to the film on the ground that the title of the story affects the reputation of the people of Kerala. We cannot isolate Kerala from India. Kerala is also part of India. Kerala does not have a dignity as such. The dignity is that of India. As a citizen of India…They project on the basis that they are the citizens of Kerala. So what is projected and what is sought to be redressed…is something known to law. If their case is as far as a community is concerned, people in a country or people in a State is concerned, it is not their personal grievance. What is sought to be redressed is the grievance of the public as such.”
Yesterday, the Court had expressed its willingness to watch the movie but the senior counsel appearing for the film producer had submitted that the matter can be argued on merits.
The counsel appearing on behalf on the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) also made detailed arguments today. It was contended that the film’s title cannot be objected to without knowing what is portrayed in the movie. Hearing the argument, the judge orally remarked:
“What is wrong with the title as such? Kerala Story. Probably, according to you (Petitioners), it is offensive only when Kerala Story is connected with visuals in the movie. Otherwise, title by itself…We have Kerala Crime Files, we have several stories…”
Additionally, several arguments were adduced by the parties today. After hearing the parties for some time, the Court posted the matter tomorrow for further hearing.
Arguments on Film Title
A counter has also been filed in the matter by the film’s producer for the limited purpose of opposing the interim reliefs prayed for. It has been submitted that the film will be exhibited with a prominent disclaimer that certain characters, incidents and settings have been “dramatized” for cinematic purposes.
Petitioners however argued that the film, while showing pan India events, has the name Kerala in its title only to defame the State. Reference was made to M/s Cosmos Entertainments v. The Regional Officer, CBFC and Others where the producers of film Janaki v. State of Kerala agreed to change its title to Janaki V. v. State of Kerala, following objections by the CBFC.
CBFC counsel however contended that some people might get offended by the title of movies like Delhi Belly, Once Upon a Time in Mumbai, Chennai Express, Delhi 6, Mumbai Meri Jaan, etc. “Where does it end?” he asked.
True story?
The movie is being promoted as being based on true events, is Petitioners’ further concern. It is contended that even as per the filmmakers’ own admission, the film or alleged true events did not have a single incident from Kerala. “They are saying that stories are from Kerala and yet none of the victims they have introduced are from Kerala,” it was submitted.
Further, it was argued that ever since the release of its prequel, i.e., The Kerala Story, Keralites have faced backlash from all over the world. Petitioners also produced an exhibit mentioning several incidents that occurred in different parts of India after the release of the first movie.
Locus and Maintainability
The Producer had also, in its counter, questioned the locus standi of the Petitioners. Responding to this, Petitioner’s counsel submitted, “My petitioner is a Keralite, born and brought up in Kerala, his reputation is affected. Place of birth, regional identity, etc are important. His right to life is affected. There might be similar persons with similar grievances but I have my own grievances and reputation is affected.“
Senior Advocate S. Sreekumar appearing for the Producer however contended, “He is not personally aggrieved. He is aggrieved by the social parameter. That is not the same as saying he is aggrieved.“
CBFC counsel also questioned the maintainability of the petition, pointing that an alternative remedy under the Cinematograph Act lies. Petitioners on the other hand contend that they exhausted the alternative remedy before the central government.
“Whether the writ is maintainable or not, that is for the Court to decide,” the Court however responded.
Validity of Teaser
During the hearing, counsel appearing for the Petitioners also pressed for withdrawal of the film’s teaser, allegedly being run without a Certification. “What they cannot actually show in the theatre, that is being put in the social media using the loophole. What cannot be done directly is being indirectly,” the counsel argued.
The Court then turned to the CBFC and asked if someone puts up a teaser or trailer without its certification, “you have no role?“
CBFC counsel responded in the negative, stating, “I have no role. If it is a video on the internet, we do not have jurisdiction to look into it.“
“Movies can be uploading into Youtube without your certification?” the Judge further probed.
“Yes,” CBFC counsel responded.
Nevertheless, the Court noted that the prayers in the petition do not seek any action against the teaser. “I’ll have to confine myself to the reliefs prayed for. There is no relief claimed with regard to the teaser,” the judge said.
The petitions are moved by Advocates Maitreyi Sachidananda Hegde, Rizla K.M., and Deepika K. Sasi & Advocates Sreerag Shylan, Ferha Azeez, and Devananda S.
Case Nos: WP(C) 6574/ 2026 and WP(C) 6854/2026
Case Titles: Sreedev Namboodiri v. Union of India and Ors. and Freddy V. Francis v. Union of India and Ors.
