The Kerala High Court on Thursday (February 26) stayed the release of the film Kerala Story 2: Goes Beyond, just a day before it was scheduled to hit theatres, after petitions challenged the censor clearance granted to the movie. The interim order was passed by Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas, who expressed serious concerns about the potential impact of the film’s content on public order and social harmony.
In a strongly worded observation, the Court noted that even the teaser of the film, conceded to be part of the movie, has the “prima facie potential to distort public perception and disturb communal harmony.” The judge further observed that the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) appeared, at least at first glance, to have ignored the statutory guidelines for film certification, and directed the body to re-examine the issue.
The Court underlined that freedom of expression is not absolute, remarking that “dissemination of content which has a tendency to create discord, disturb law and order, even undermine social harmony cannot come within the gamut of freedom of speech and expression” guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. The stay order came on interim applications filed by the petitioners, who had sought judicial intervention against the film’s release.
Earlier, the High Court had indicated its willingness to watch the film before deciding the matter. However, the producer declined the offer, with his counsel submitting that the case could be argued purely on legal merits. During the hearings, the Court had orally remarked that while Kerala is known for social harmony, the portrayal in the film suggested that such incidents were happening across the state, which could give a misleading impression and potentially incite passions.
After hearing detailed arguments from the petitioners, the senior counsel representing the producer, and the CBFC’s counsel, the Court reserved its verdict, which has now culminated in the interim stay. The petitioners argued that the certification was granted without proper compliance with the Cinematograph Act and that the title and narrative of the film, touching upon themes such as forced conversions and terrorism, would stigmatise the entire state of Kerala. They contended that the content was capable of provoking communal tension and violence.
One of the petitioners also pointed out that after the release of the prequel, The Kerala Story, which itself was embroiled in multiple legal challenges, there were reported instances of unrest and growing ill-will towards Kerala and Keralites, both in India and abroad. The petitioners further argued that the filmmakers had claimed during promotions that the sequel was not specifically about Kerala and narrated a pan-India story. They noted that even the alleged victims shown in the film were not from Kerala, and therefore objected to the continued use of “Kerala” in the title.
On the other hand, the producer’s senior counsel questioned the maintainability of the petitions, arguing that they were like public interest litigation and did not disclose any individual grievance. He contended that the petitioners were merely attempting to protect what they described as the “collective dignity” of Kerala. The petitioners countered this by asserting that shared grievances do not lose legal relevance simply because they affect a larger group, and pointed out that objections to locus standi were not uniformly raised by the respondents.
During the proceedings, the Court also took note of the teaser’s transcript, which had been placed on record and which it found to contain objectionable elements. The CBFC’s counsel, however, argued that neither the teaser nor the trailer had been certified by the Board, and that it had no role in regulating content uploaded on social media. It was also claimed that the controversial content in the teaser did not feature in the film itself.
The Court observed that the petitions did not specifically seek relief against the teaser or trailer and remarked that other legal remedies were available if objectionable material was being circulated online. The petitioners responded by alleging that the filmmakers were attempting to do indirectly what they could not do directly, and since the producer had refused to screen the film for the Court, it was impossible to independently verify what the movie actually contained.
Beyond the immediate dispute, the stay order is likely to reignite the larger debate around artistic freedom and censorship in India. The judiciary has often remarked in past controversies that those who are offended by a film can simply choose not to watch it. Against that backdrop, the present intervention raises a sharper constitutional question: whether pre-emptively halting a film’s release, on the apprehension of possible disturbance, tilts the balance away from the robust protection of free speech under Article 19(1)(a), and risks turning anticipated offence into a veto on expression rather than leaving the audience to decide.
