In a significant development for the Malayalam film industry, the Kerala High Court has provided partial relief to the makers of the movie 'Haal' in their protracted legal tussle with the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC). The court's ruling, delivered on Friday, November 14, represents a nuanced verdict in the ongoing debate about cinematic expression and regulatory oversight.
The Court's Verdict: A Mixed Outcome
Justice VG Arun of the Kerala High Court quashed the CBFC's earlier order that demanded the deletion of six specific clips from the film. Importantly, the judge had personally viewed the film before delivering the judgment. The court found the CBFC's insistence on these six mandatory removals as a precondition for an 'A' certificate to be untenable. However, this was not a complete victory for the producers.
The court made it clear that the film would only be reconsidered for certification after the implementation of two compulsory edits. This conditional relief means that while the producers successfully challenged six proposed cuts, they must still comply with two specific modifications mandated by the judiciary itself.
Mandatory Changes Ordered by the Court
According to reports from IANS, both required changes touch upon the film's central thematic debates. The first mandated edit involves the deletion of a scene where characters are seen eating biryani. The second requires the removal of texts deemed derogatory to certain cultural institutions.
Additionally, the court ordered that the 'Ragi', which is clearly visible in a particular scene, must be blurred. The specific text "Athildanne... Mada Thilekumi Kanu..." was also ordered to be deleted. Once these two primary changes are implemented, the producers can approach the CBFC again for certification. The court has directed the board to take a fresh decision within two weeks of receiving the modified film.
The Legal Battle and Competing Arguments
The film's crew had petitioned the court against the CBFC's original conditions, which included six changes necessary to obtain an 'A' certificate. These originally demanded cuts included deleting a song featuring the heroine dressed as a Muslim and hiding the name of an educational institution.
Representing the producers, a senior advocate argued that the film is essentially a bi-religious love story between a youth and a girl, containing no excessive violence. He contended that the CBFC had overreacted, imposing cuts even where there was no genuine ugliness or seriousness in the content.
The CBFC, represented by the Cabinet Deputy Legal Counsel, countered that the film "enters sensitive religious space" and contains scenes that could potentially create unrest among communities. To this argument, Justice Arun pointedly questioned, "Is a slight 'inconvenience' the only reason to block a film?"
Adding complexity to the case, organizations including the Catholic Congress, Thamarassery Diocese, and an RSS functionary had raised additional objections to the film's content. While the court has now delivered a balanced verdict, the industry awaits the CBFC's new decision after the mandatory amendments are incorporated into the film.
