Kerala HC stays release of 'The Kerala Story 2: Goes Beyond'

The court said the content in the teaser​, which forms part of the film​, prima facie h​as the potential to distort public perception and disturb communal harmony.
Kerala High Court
Kerala High CourtPhoto | Express
Updated on
3 min read

KOCHI: The Kerala High Court on Thursday granted an interim stay against the release of the film "The Kerala Story 2: Goes Beyond", saying that prima facie there is non-application of mind by the censor board while certifying the movie.

​​Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas observed that, despite the limited time and urgency involved, it had offered to view the film to assess the allegations against film over provocative portrayal of Muslims. Since the filmmakers refused to cooperate, “this court cannot substitute its views for ​​those of the regulatory body,” the order noted.

The court said the content in the teaser​, which forms part of the film​, prima facie h​as the potential to distort public perception and disturb communal harmony.

Such concerns fall within the grounds specified under Section 5B(1) of the Cinematograph Act, namely public order, decency​, or morality.

The court held that a comprehensive assessment of the film was necessary to determine the existence of sensitive thematic content, including its narrative treatment and visual presentation.

Dissemination of content that ​​tends to create discord, disturb law and order, or undermine social harmony may not fall within the ambit of the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, it observed.

The court pointed out that the Central Government has laid down specific guidelines for certification. Clause 12 mandates that visuals or words contemptuous of racial, religious​, or other groups should not be presented. Clause 14 prohibits visuals or words promoting communal or anti-national attitudes. Clause 17 emphasises that public order must not be endangered.

Prima facie, these guidelines did not appear to have been borne in mind by the CBFC while granting a ‘UA 60+’ certification, the court said, adding that there was a manifest disregard of applicable law warranting judicial interference.

The court said the apprehensions raised by the petitioners must be viewed in the context that the present film is a sequel to an earlier movie.

Referring to observations of the Supreme Court, it noted that while one film relating to a social cause may not significantly alter attitudes, continual exposure to films of a similar character could bring about change.

The repeated portrayal of similar themes in the sequel, as evident from the admitted scenes, could potentially create conflict involving a religious group and affect the State itself, the court said.

It cautioned that Kerala, known for communal harmony, could be portrayed globally as a hub of fanaticism and communal divide.

Rejecting the contention that other films have used names of States without objection, the court said each case must be examined on its own facts, visuals, dialogues and overall theme.

​T​he court issued the interim order on petitions filed by Sreedev Namboodiri of Kannur and others challenging the certification granted to the film.

The court directed the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) to consider the revision petitions filed by the petitioners within two weeks. Until the CBFC passes fresh orders after hearing both the petitioners and the filmmakers, the movie shall not be released.

Counsel for the filmmakers argued that the CBFC is the sole expert authority constituted under the Cinematograph Act, 1952, to examine films in their entirety and certify them for public exhibition.

The Board applies statutory guidelines and performs a quasi-judicial function, and its certification is not a mere administrative formality but a determination by domain experts that the film, viewed as a whole, meets the standards prescribed by law, counsel submitted.

The petitioners, however, argued that although the film depicts events across India, it uses the name ‘Kerala’ in its title solely to defame the State.

Responding to this, counsel for the CBFC submitted that if such arguments were accepted, even titles of films such as Delhi Belly, Once Upon a Time in Mumbai, Chennai Express, Delhi-6​, and Mumbai Meri Jaan could be objected to by some viewers. “Where does it end?” counsel asked.

Related Stories

No stories found.
The New Indian Express
www.newindianexpress.com