LawChakra

‘Haal’ Film Row: Kerala High Court Rejects CBFC and Catholic Congress Appeals After Watching Film

The Kerala High Court has dismissed appeals by the CBFC and the Catholic Congress against the Malayalam film Haal, upholding a ruling that quashed most censorship cuts. The Bench watched the film before reaffirming the filmmakers’ rights.

Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!

'Haal' Film Row: Kerala High Court Rejects CBFC and Catholic Congress Appeals After Watching Film

KERALA: The Kerala High Court on Friday dismissed appeals filed by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) and the Catholic Congress of the Thamarassery Diocese against an earlier ruling that had quashed four of six cuts ordered for the Malayalam film Haal.

The Division Bench comprising Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice PV Balakrishnan upheld the November 14 single-judge order, which had struck down four of the CBFC’s six proposed excisions. The filmmakers had voluntarily accepted excision numbers 5 and 6, and the single judge had directed the CBFC to reconsider the certification process accordingly.

One of the major highlights of the hearing was the Court’s firm stance regarding the Catholic Congress’s attempt to challenge the single-judge decision.

The organisation had argued that Haal defamed the Thamarassery Bishop and depicted the Bishop’s House without permission, potentially disturbing communal harmony. However, the Court questioned how the group could demand substantive relief when it had not filed the original writ petition, having only sought impleadment earlier.

The Bench observed:

“How can you compel them to remove? It is their film. Please tell us any law… Whatever relief is granted is granted to the petitioner. We are very clear no relief can be granted to you.”

The Court clarified that if the Catholic Congress sought independent relief, it would need to file its own petition, not a writ appeal in a case where it had only been a respondent.

The CBFC and Union government had contended that the filmmakers should not have approached the High Court at all, claiming that the Cinematograph Act provides a specific appellate mechanism for challenging CBFC orders.

However, after reviewing the film, screened on December 3 in the presence of all parties, the Division Bench found no reason to interfere with the single judge’s analysis or conclusions.

The CBFC defended all six proposed cuts, stating that each was justified under Article 19(2) of the Constitution, which allows restrictions on free speech to maintain public order, decency, morality, or prevent defamation.

Yet the Division Bench upheld the single judge’s findings that four of the six cuts were unwarranted, confirming that the CBFC must reconsider certification without imposing those excisions.

The High Court ruled:

The judgment reinforces the Court’s approach to safeguarding artistic freedom while ensuring that objections from third-party groups do not overstep legal boundaries.

Appearance:
For the filmmakers: Senior counsel Joseph Kodianthara, along with advocates ES Saneej and John Vithayathil
For the CBFC: Additional Solicitor General ARL Sundaresan
For the Catholic Congress: Advocate Shinu J Pillai.

Case Title:
Addl. 5 Catholic Congress v Juby Thomas & ors and connected case

Click Here to Read More Reports On Haal

FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE

Exit mobile version