The Kerala High Court questioned the CBFC over certifying The Kerala Story 2 – Goes Beyond, with Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas hearing pleas to halt its release, warning that portraying Kerala communally could mislead viewers and incite tensions.
KERALA: The Kerala High Court questioned the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) about the certification granted to the contentious film titled ‘The Kerala Story 2 – Goes Beyond’.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas presided over three petitions seeking a stay on the film’s release and a cancellation of its certification, citing concerns that it could fuel communal tensions. The judge highlighted the CBFC’s crucial role when a work appears to depict a secular state like Kerala through a communal lens.
He remarked that
“Kerala is so secular. It lives with total harmony but have you considered this when something is portrayed as happening all over the state? There is a wrong indication and can even incite passion and that is when the censor board (CBFC) comes in picture.”
Noting that the film claims to be based on true events, Justice Thomas observed that the petitioners’ worries about misrepresentation and potential incitement of communal strife appear justified.
He said,
“The film is projected as being inspired by true events and that, prima facie shows that the concerns raised by the petitioners appear to have some justification”,
The judge also pointed out that because the film’s title includes the state’s name, the concerns of Kerala’s residents cannot be ignored. He added that while he usually avoids interfering with artistic expression, the religious theme of the film warrants careful consideration.
Justice Thomas stated,
“Apprehensions of people in Kerala cannot be ignored because you have given the name Kerala. Normally, I do not interfere with any movie because it is a creation of an art but then you say it is inspired by true events and named it Kerala, which can create some communal tension”,
Justice Thomas further questioned whether the film complies with CBFC notifications that prohibit visuals or words that are contemptuous of racial, religious, or similar groups. He acknowledged that freedom of creativity exists, but emphasized that CBFC conditions must be followed.
He noted,
“Presumption can be reversed by the movie itself but this is not just creation, you say it is inspired by true events. That has great bearing.”
ALSO READ: “The Kerala Story” Movie on Doordarshan Channel || Kerala HC Declines to Delay the Airing
Senior Advocate S. Sreekumar, who represents the producers, agreed to remove the teasers released to date and offered to arrange a screening for Justice Kurian before a final decision.
He stated that a screening could be arranged so that the judge could view the film prior to ruling.
Justice Thomas reiterated that although artistic freedom is generally respected, the present issue requires serious scrutiny given the film’s religious theme.
He added,
“I don’t want to interfere with the artistic expression but the law and guidelines laid down indicate certain restrictions, when it comes to religious matters.”
The court then adjourned the matter to hear further at 2:00 PM.
One of the petitions, filed by Kannur resident Sreedev Namboodiri, contends that the film portrays Kerala in an unfair and stigmatizing manner and that releasing such a film could provoke communal and regional disharmony as well as law-and-order issues.
‘The Kerala Story 2’ serves as a sequel to the previously controversial Hindi film ‘The Kerala Story’, which depicted women from Kerala being recruited into ISIS.
Namboodiri argued that the sequel’s promotional material, including the teaser and trailer, contains themes and dialogues likely to provoke public reaction. He objected specifically to the teaser’s closing line, “ab sahenge nahin… ladenge” (we will not tolerate it anymore, but will fight), arguing that it constitutes a call for confrontation that could incite violence within the community.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Updates: Election Petition Against Congress MLA K Babu and Controversy Over ‘The Kerala Story’ Movie
He challenged the certification of the sequel, asserting that the CBFC did not adequately assess its impact on public order, decency, and morality as required under Section 5B of the Cinematograph Act, 1952.
A second petition, filed by Freddy V. Francis, seeks to bar the film’s release while challenging the use of the word ‘Kerala’ in the title. He contends that this choice is a deliberate attempt to misrepresent the state’s culture and identity. Although the narrative involves characters from several states, including Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh, the title allegedly links terrorism and forced religious norms exclusively to Kerala. He termed the film’s naming as “marketing of hate” aimed at stigmatizing Kerala, and questioned the claim that the events are true, arguing that no empirical data or judicial findings have been presented to substantiate the narrative.
Both petitioners assert that the film undermines the dignity and reputation of Keralites by violating constitutional protections under Article 14 (right to equality) and Article 21 (right to life and liberty), and by infringing upon reasonable restrictions on freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a). They urge the court to quash the film’s certification and call for modifications, including reconsideration of the title and the addition of disclaimers to prevent regional vilification.
A third petition, filed by advocate Athul Roy, appeared in person to challenge the film’s certification and oppose the use of the term ‘Kerala’, but he did not seek a ban; he requested only a reconsideration of the title.
Representing Namboodiri were Advocates Maitreyi Sachchidananda Hegde, Rizla KM, and Deepika K Sasi. Advocates Sreerag Shylan, Ferha Azeez, and Devananda S represented Francis. Sunshine Pictures, the film’s producer, was represented by Senior Advocate Sreekumar, with Ameet Naik, Madhu Gadodia, Nithyesh, Annirudh, and Jasmeet also appearing.
Case Title: Sreedev Namboodiri v. Union of India & Ors and connected matters.
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
