Kerala High Court Stays Release of 'The Kerala Story 2' Over Certification Concerns
The Kerala High Court on Thursday issued an interim order staying the release and public exhibition of the film 'The Kerala Story 2 – Goes Beyond', which was scheduled to hit cinemas on Friday. The stay was granted to enable the central government to re-examine the film's certification in light of serious allegations that it promotes communal and fanatical attitudes.
Court Proceedings and Petitions
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas issued the interim order in the afternoon, responding to petitions filed by Sreedev Namboothiri of Kannur and Freddy V Francis of Ernakulam, who challenged the film's release. The court directed the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting to consider Namboothiri's revision petition, which seeks a re-examination of the film's certification. This must be done within two weeks, after granting a hearing to the petitioner, the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC), and Vipul Amrutlal Shah, the proprietor of Sunshine Pictures and the film's producer. The bench adjourned the petitions to March 12 for further consideration.
Appeals and Special Hearing
Meanwhile, producer Vipul Amrutlal Shah filed appeals against the order on Thursday itself. A division bench comprising Justices Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and P V Balakrishnan considered these appeals in a special sitting at 8 PM. After a two-hour hearing, the bench reserved its order, which is likely to be pronounced on Friday.
Allegations by Petitioners
During the hearing before the single bench, the petitioners referred to the teasers and trailers of the movie, alleging that certain visuals and dialogues denigrate not only the state of Kerala and its people but also an entire religious community. They contended that portions of the teaser could promote disharmony and incite communal tension. Francis specifically sought modifications, including changing the film's title to a neutral one, removing all direct references portraying Kerala as a hub of romantic and forceful conversions, and deleting the tagline 'inspired by true events'.
CBFC's Submission and Producer's Argument
The CBFC submitted that the film was granted a UA 16+ certificate subject to certain modifications and excisions. It argued that the state was not depicted in a derogatory manner and, in its assessment, the film does not pose any threat to public order. The board contended that the film, rather than offending religious sentiments, seeks to instill faith and certain values among women and conveys a message about the importance of choosing the right partner.
Producer Vipul Amrutlal Shah argued that restraining the film's release without viewing it in its entirety, or without identifying any prima facie infirmity in the certification decision—particularly based on a truncated teaser—would cause irreversible economic harm.
Court's Observations and Ruling
The bench noted that the producer declined its offer to screen the film for the court to assess the allegations. It further observed that the petitioners' apprehensions must be viewed against the backdrop of the film being a sequel to the earlier movie 'The Kerala Story'. The court stated that the repeated portrayal of the same theme in a second film of nearly identical name and concept—as reflected in the admitted scenes from the sequel—could foster contempt towards a religious group in the state and towards Kerala itself, promote communal and even fanatical attitudes, and potentially pose a threat to public order.
The court also observed that there was nothing on record to indicate that the CBFC considered these aspects while certifying the film, particularly in granting it a UA 16+ certificate. It held that when the available material prima facie reveals a manifest absence of application of mind to the statutory requirements by the CBFC—and when the possibility of communal disharmony or denigration of a community is also prima facie involved—permitting the film's release without scrutiny by higher authorities would be legally improper.
The bench added that, prima facie, the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting to safeguard communal harmony and public order did not appear to have been borne in mind while granting certification, reflecting a manifest disregard of the applicable law and warranting judicial interference.
