The Kerala High Court strongly criticized petitioners for making allegations against judges who lifted the stay on the film Kerala Story 2: Goes Beyond. The Bench led by Soumen Sen heard a PIL challenging the movie’s release.
KERALA: The Kerala High Court expressed strong disapproval regarding the allegations made by certain petitioners against judges who had lifted the stay on the release of the movie Kerala Story 2: Goes Beyond.
A Bench led by Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar VM critically addressed the submissions made by petitioners challenging the film’s release.
The Bench was hearing a new Public Interest Litigation (PIL) against the film when it noted specific arguments regarding a prior Division Bench’s decision, which included Justices SA Dharmadhikari and PV Balakrishnan, who had removed the stay on the film.
ALSO READ: The Kerala Story 2 Row: Kerala High Court Stays Release of Movie, Orders CBFC Review
The Chief Justice inquired,
“This is inconsequential for deciding the matter. You are casting an aspersion against another coordinate bench. How can you make a statement like this?”
To provide context, a single-judge Bench of the High Court had initially stayed the film’s release on February 26, following another PIL. However, the filmmakers appealed, and on February 27, a Division Bench lifted the stay after conducting an urgent hearing the evening before. A final decision on the appeal is still pending, and the film has since been released in theaters.
The new petition brought before the Chief Justice’s Bench was filed by Chandramohanan KC, a retired social science teacher and social activist, alongside advocate Mehnaz P Mohammed.
The petitioners contended that the film defames and targets Kerala by portraying the state as the epicenter of terrorism and radicalization, labeling it a “terror nursery” without credible supporting evidence, even though the depicted characters hail from various states in India.
The petition observed,
“Kerala as a whole is portrayed as a failed State and vilified as the root of this alleged propaganda,”
The petition also claimed that more than 150 characters depicted as Muslims were shown through an ‘Islamophobic lens,’ with no representation of ordinary, peace-loving Muslim characters, thereby suggesting that the entire Muslim community is malevolent.
The petitioners asserted that the continued use of the title The Kerala Story for a fictional narrative spanning multiple states constitutes unconstitutional branding of Kerala, infringing on the collective dignity and reputation of its citizens as well as Article 21 of the Constitution.
Consequently, the petitioners sought a directive to the Union government and the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) to ensure that the film is not publicly exhibited under any title containing ‘Kerala’ or ‘Keralam.’
Additionally, the petition raised concerns about the expedited manner in which the appeal was mentioned and heard by Justice Dharmadhikari’s Bench on the same day. The petitioners argued that the filmmakers managed to file their appeal before the single-judge’s interim stay order was even published on the Court’s website.
The Division Bench, comprising Chief Justice Soumen and Justice Syam Kumar, took a critical stance on this submission, stating that such arguments seem to unjustly cast aspersions on judges.
Chief Justice Soumen remarked,
“How can you cast aspersions against the judges? You have to expunge this. If you are aggrieved, you can go to the Supreme Court. But as a Division Bench, I cannot assess the observations made by another coordinate bench. Is this permissible in law? Even if we take this PIL up, this paragraph is not permissible,”
The Kerala High Court stated,
“How can you cast aspersions against the judges? You must expunge this. You are making these statements without understanding the circumstances,”
The petitioners’ counsel countered,
“It is widely reported in the media,”
Nonetheless, the Court asserted that this was irrelevant to the current plea.
The Bench indicated that such remarks could potentially invite contempt of court actions, emphasizing that these allegations were made without complete information.
Chief Justice Soumen remarked,
“You are making such statements without knowing the circumstances under which the matter was taken up? We can initiate a contempt case for this,”
The petitioners’ counsel then agreed that the controversial paragraph could be removed.
The Chief Justice suggested,
“You should file a fresh petition,”
He also called on the petitioners to show greater respect for the judiciary, remarking that while individual judges may come and go, the institution must endure.
He stated.
“How were you going to support this paragraph? You must remember one thing: respect the institution. We will come, we will go, but the institution will remain. You may criticize the judgment; there’s no issue with that. But do not cast aspersions,”
The petitioners’ counsel offered an unconditional apology in response. The Chief Justice made it clear that personal attacks on judges would not be tolerated.
He stated,
“No one knows how the Bench was constituted. That is known only to me. None of you are aware of it. It was a regular roster bench. Did you inquire about it? You tarnish the image of the institution. Argue on the law, but do not attack a judge or a Bench; that I will not permit. Those who are aggrieved can approach the Supreme Court. As a coordinate bench, a different Division Bench has decided the matter rightly or wrongly. Once it has attained some form of finality, decorum must be upheld,”
He reiterated,
“Remember one thing: you must respect the institution. We will come, we will go, but the institution will remain,”
Given that a lawyer was a co-petitioner in the PIL, the Chief Justice remarked that such comments were unexpected from a practicing advocate.
He noted,
“You are an advocate. You wear the robe. You are an officer of the court. You are making such careless comments in the petition,”
In response, the petitioners’ counsel pleaded with the Court not to reject the petition solely on this matter, assuring that it was an inadvertent statement. He also mentioned that the release of Kerala Story 2 has led to serious law and order issues.
He stated,
“Milord, I request that this inadvertent observation does not prejudice the cause in this public interest litigation. I sincerely apologize for this. Following the movie’s release, there have been significant public disorder issues,”
The Court responded,
“You referred to the Division Bench order as an argumentative statement. You can record the order, but you cannot make such arguments in a petition before a coordinate Bench. Judicial discipline must be maintained,”
Ultimately, the Court allowed the petitioners to file a new petition without the previously flagged controversial submissions.
It noted that the petitioners’ counsel had agreed to remove three paragraphs containing these statements and that a fresh petition would be submitted afterward.
The PIL was filed by advocate Chelson Chembarathy.
Case Title: Chandramohan KC & anr v Union of India & ors.
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES