The Kerala High Court on Friday (February 27) paved way for release of the movie ‘The Kerala Story 2 – Goes Beyond’.
The Division Bench of Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice P.V. Balakrishnan stayed a single judge order which had stayed its release scheduled today and posted the case after two weeks.
The Court passed the order in the writ appeals preferred by producer Vipul Amrutlal Shah against the common order of the Single Judge staying the release of the movie for 15 days.
A detailed order is awaited.
The Single Judge had also directed consideration of the petitioner’s revision before the Chairperson of the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) within 2 weeks.
The Division Bench held an urgent hearing of the writ appeals at 7:30 p.m. last night, just hours after the Single Judge had passed the interim order.
Senior Advocates Elvin Peter and Neeraj Kishan Kaul appeared on behalf of the producer of the film. Advocates Maitreyi Hegde and Sreerag Shylan raised arguments on behalf on the petitioners, who had challenged the censor certification of the film.
After a detailed hearing, the Bench had reserved its verdict.
Senior Advocate Kaul had argued that it was the prerogative of the storyteller to tell the story that he wants and which social evil he wants to address in a movie. He contended that courts have, in the past, refused to interfere when other religions’ social evils were portrayed in movies and the same view should be taken in this case as well.
He particular emphasised on the fact that when the prequel of the movie, which was based on Kerala alone, was subjected to litigation, before the High Courts and the Supreme Court, the movie was not stayed. Now, the present movie has protagonists from other States as well, including Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh, there was no need for an order against release.
Senior Advocate Kaul canvassed that a movie cannot shake the tenets of a religion or cause disruption of communal harmony. He further argued that the present movie in no way denigrates Kerala. He argued that commercial disruption can curtail free speech, and destroy the prospects of a filmmaker.
Senior Advocate Elvin Peter’s arguments were focused on the maintainability of the writ petitions and locus of the petitioners. He contended that the matter was in the nature of a public interest litigation and ought to have been heard by a Division Bench.
He also argued that the nature of the Single Judge’s interim order was as good as allowing the writ petition itself, and the same is impermissible. He further contended that the Cinematograph Act’s Section 6, though it vests revisional powers on the Central government, it is not a statutory remedy as claimed by the petitioner.
Senior Advocate Peter also opposed the Single Judge’s finding that the CBFC had not applied its mind while granting the certification. He pointed out that 16 cuts were suggested by the Board, and that clearly shows application of mind.
The petitioners’ counsels defended their locus standi and the maintainability of their pleas. Advocate Maitreyi Hegde argued that the fundamental right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution includes the right to reputation. She contended that a person’s reputation includes his entire personality and the region that belongs to. A bad portrayal of Kerala affects his individual reputation and rights.
In the plea, there was a prayer to remove ‘Kerala’ from the movie title and to have a more neutral name. It was contended that the title of the movie can have an adverse impact based on the visuals portrayed in it and since the producer was reluctant to screen the movie, there is no way to know what is portrayed in it.
She also contended that considering balance of convenience, irreparable damages that would be caused to the petitioners, the injunction should be in their favour. She told the Court that if the movie is released today, it would leave the petitioner remediless whereas the producer can release the movie at a later date, which would still fetch him monetary benefits, especially given the traction it received because of the present litigation.
Advocate Sreerag Shylan, who had appeared for the other petitioner, pointed out that the producer had not objected to his petitioner’s locus and no counter affidavit was filed in this writ petition. He argued that the petitioner, being a person residing abroad, was affected by the perception created by the movie on Kerala and Keralites.
He then brought to the attention of the Court that the prequel was originally promoted as inspired by true events and by the time its challenge reached the Supreme Court, the stance had changed that the movie was purely fictional. He told that again, the promotion of the present movie is as if it was purely based on true events, which can create enmity towards a particular region.
Both of the petitioners’ counsel told the Court that they were informed of the urgent hearing just minutes before it was scheduled and copies of the appeals were given to them, 10 minutes before the hearing.
Case Nos: WA No. 547/2026 and WA 548/2026
Case Titles: Vipul Amrutlal Shah v. Freddy V. Francis and Ors. and connected case
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 123
Counsel for the appellants: Elvin Peter (Sr.), Neeraj Kishan Kaul (Sr.), A.C. Venugopal, Gautham Mohan.
Counsel for the respondents: Maitreyi Sachidananda Hegde, Rizla K.M., and Deepika K. Sasi & Sreerag Shylan, Ferha Azeez, and Devananda S.
Click Here To Read/ Download Order
