The Kerala High Court on Thursday (February 26) stayed release of the movie Kerala Story 2: Goes Beyond, following pleas challenging its censor certification. The film was slated to hit the theatres tomorrow.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas in his order said, “…the very content in the teaser itself, which is conceded to be part of the movie, has the prima facie potential to distort the public perception and disturb communal harmony…There can be possibility that the State of Kerala, otherwise known for its communal harmony and friendly natives be identified by viewers across the world as a hub of fanatical and communal divide.“
The Court observed that the petitioners in two of the writ petitions have sufficiently proved their locus standi, individual grievances and the maintainability of the pleas. It was particularly noted that the producer was not keen on the Court watching the movie and therefore, the Court cannot substitute its view with that of the statutory body, i.e., the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC).
“Not withstanding the shortage of time, considering the urgency of the matter, though this Court had offered to view the movie to appreciate the allegations vis-a-vis the actual depictions, the 3rd respondent (producer) evaded the same. This Court cannot substitute its views with that of the regulatory body…a comprehensive assessment of the film to identity the existence of sensitive thematic content including its treatment of interfaith dynamics and visual presentation may be necessary.”
The Judge further observed that the CBFC prima facie ignored the Central Government’s guidelines against presentation of visuals contemptuous of racial, religious or other groups and of visuals that promote communal, anti-national attitude or endanger public order.
“Dissemination of content which has a tendency to create discord, disturb law and order, even undermine social harmony cannot come within the gamut of freedom of speech and expression enshrined in Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India…Prima facie, these guidelines do not seem to have been borne in mind by the CBFC while granting certification and there is a manifest disregard of the applicable law necessitating for this Court to interfere.There is nothing to indicate that the 2nd respondent (CBFC) considered any of the above factors while certifying the movie for release, that too by a U/A 16+ certification,” the Court added.
A direction was passed to the Central Government to consider, within 2 weeks, the revision petition filed by one of the petitioners before the CBFC Chairperson. The CBFC and the producer was directed to ensure that the said movie is not released for public viewership for a period of 15 days from today.
Though the producer’s counsel produced a judgment saying interim relief cannot be granted when the High Court declines to entertain a plea exercising its discretionary jurisdiction in view of existence of alternative remedy, the Court felt that interim stay of the movie is necessary in the present circumstances and observed that it had not refused to entertain the plea.
Previously, though the Court had expressed its willingness to watch the movie before deciding the case, the producer was not keen on the same and his counsel had submitted that the matter can be argued on merits.
“Kerala lives in total harmony. But you have portrayed that this is happening all over Kerala. There is a wrong indication and can also incite passion,” the High Court had orally remarked.
It had thereafter heard detailed arguments adduced by the petitioners’ counsel, the senior counsel appearing for the producer and the counsel for the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC). It had then reserved its verdict.
The petitioners in the cases had argued that the certification to the movie was granted without duly complying with the statutory mandate under the Cinematograph Act. It was contended that the title of the movie combined with the narratives portrayed in the film, including forced conversions, terrorism, would stigmatise the entire region of Kerala. They argued that the content of the movie is such that to incite passion and communal violence.
During the hearing of the case, one of the petitioners had made out a case that subsequent to the release of the prequel ‘The Kerala Story‘, which also have been subject to multiple litigations, there have been reported incidents of unrest and general ill-will towards Kerala and Keralites, in India and abroad.
The petitioners also pointed out that the filmmakers had, during the promotion of the film, stated that the movie is not about Kerala and depicts a pan-Indian story. Moreover, even the victims of the alleged acts of terrorism introduced by them were not from Kerala. Therefore, they objected to the use of the ‘Kerala’ in the title of the film, which is not about Kerala.
The senior counsel appearing for the producer of the film had raised a question of maintainability of the pleas, contending that the matters are in the nature of public interest litigation. He further submitted that the petitioners have not a made out any case of any individual grievances but are trying to protect the collective dignity of Kerala.
The petitioners had defended their maintainability and locus to prefer the petitions by stating that merely because there are similarly placed person who have similar grievances, their grievances cannot be left unaddressed. One of the petitioners also argued that his locus was not objected to by the respondents since the written objection was filed only in one case.
In one of the pleas, the transcript of the teaser uploaded on YouTube was produced and the same, the Court had opined, contained objectionable content. However, the CBFC’s counsel had argued that neither the teaser or the trailer of the movie were certified by it and therefore, it has no role if the same is uploaded on social media or contained objectionable content. A pleading was taken that the content in the teaser are not there in the film.
The Court had then taken note of the fact that the pleas do not include a prayer against the teaser or trailer of the film. It was also orally remarked that there are other remedies available if objectionable content are uploaded on social media.
The petitioners then contended that the filmmakers are indirectly doing what they cannot do directly and therefore, the same cannot be permitted. Since the producer was not willing to screen the movie, it is not possible to know for sure what is actually there in the movie, the Court had orally noted during the hearing yesterday.
Case Nos: WP(C) 6574/ 2026, WP(C) 6854/2026 and WP(C) 7296/ 2026
Case Titles: Sreedev Namboodiri v. Union of India and Ors., Freddy V. Francis v. Union of India and Ors. and Athul Roy v. Ministry of Information and Broadcasting and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 123
Counsels for the petitioners: Maitreyi Sachidananda Hegde, Rizla K.M., and Deepika K. Sasi & Sreerag Shylan, Ferha Azeez, and Devananda S.
Counsel for the respondents: S. Sreekumar (Sr.) – for producer
