The Kerala High Court on Tuesday raised concerns over the certification granted to the film The Kerala Story 2 – Goes Beyond, observing that the portrayal of Kerala in the movie could create communal tension.
A bench led by Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas said the Court may watch the film before deciding on petitions that seek to stay its release and cancel the certificate issued by the Central Board of Film Certification.
“You are not keen that the Court should watch the movie. You want the issue to be decided on whether this petition is a private litigation or a public litigation,” the judge orally remarked while addressing the producers’ counsel.
Court Questions Film’s Portrayal of Kerala
During the hearing, Justice Thomas said Kerala is known for communal harmony and secular values, and questioned whether the filmmakers had considered the possible impact of the movie’s title and content.
“Kerala is so secular. It lives in total harmony. But when something is portrayed as happening all over the state, there is a wrong indication and it can even incite passion. That is when the censor board comes into the picture. Have you considered that?” the judge asked.
The Court noted that the film is being promoted as “inspired by true events” and prominently uses the name Kerala in its title. However, petitioners argued that the storyline is not limited to Kerala and features incidents from different states.
“In bold letters you say inspired by true events. In very small letters you say the characters are fictional,” the Court observed, adding that such presentation could have a serious impact once the film is released.
Producers Change Stand on Screening
In the morning session, counsel for the producers had agreed to arrange a screening of the movie for the Court and also expressed willingness to remove the teaser and trailer temporarily.
However, when the matter resumed after lunch, senior counsel S Sreekumar, appearing for the producers, said the Court should first decide whether the petitions are maintainable as public interest litigations or private disputes.
Taking note of the change in position, Justice Thomas remarked that the producers did not appear interested in allowing the Court to watch the film.
Since no clear instructions were given regarding the screening, the Court indicated that it would first consider the preliminary issue of maintainability.
Petitions Challenge Film Title and Certification
Three separate petitions have been filed challenging the CBFC’s clearance to the film. The petitioners argue that the movie misrepresents Kerala and could disturb law and order.
One of the petitions was filed by Kannur native Sreedev Namboodiri. He contended that the teaser and promotional material contain themes and dialogues capable of inciting violence.
Another petitioner, Freddie V Francis, has sought a ban on the film’s release and questioned the use of the word Kerala in the title. A third petition by advocate Atul Roy also challenges both the naming of the film and the certification granted to it.
The petitioners argued that the CBFC failed to properly examine the film’s impact on public order, decency and morality under Section 5B of the Cinematograph Act, 1952. They also claimed that the film violates constitutional protections under Articles 14, 19 and 21 by allegedly harming the dignity and reputation of the people of Kerala.
Earlier Controversy and Political Reactions
The sequel follows the earlier film The Kerala Story, which had sparked widespread controversy over its portrayal of religious radicalisation.
Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan had earlier criticised the sequel’s teaser, saying it was “aimed at sowing hatred against Kerala and insulting our secular tradition.”
The Court also referred to a recent Supreme Court case involving a proposed Netflix title, where it was observed that a film title should not denigrate an entire community.
Justice Thomas said he generally does not interfere with artistic works but added that when a film claims to be inspired by true events and carries the name of a state, the apprehensions of the people “cannot be ignored.”
The matter will be heard again tomorrow, with the Court expected to decide whether it will proceed to watch the film before ruling on the petitions.
