The Kerala High Court on Thursday (March 5, 2026) reprimanded two petitioners seeking the reversal of an earlier order of the court that allowed the release of the movie ‘The Kerala Story 2’. A Division Bench of Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar VM strongly objected to the language used by the petitioners in their petition.
In the petition, the petitioners contended that the filmmakers of the movie were able to get the matter mentioned before the Division Bench of Justices SA Dharmadhikari and PV Balakrishnan, even before the interim stay order passed by a single judge was published on the court’s website. Notably, a single-judge bench of the High Court stayed the release of the movie on February 26, 2026, on a petition. Subsequently, the makers of the movie challenged the single-judge order before the Division Bench, which heard the matter urgently and lifted the stay order on February 27, 2026, pending a final verdict on the appeal.
Chief Justice Sen lashed out at the petitioners, Chandramohanan KC, a retired social science teacher and social activist and advocate Mehnaz P Mohammed, for casting aspersions on the judges. “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 sitting as a Division Bench, I cannot decide the observation by another coordinate bench. Is this permissible in law? Even if we take this PIL up, this paragraph is not permissible,” the CJI remarked.
Cautioning the petitioners, the High Court said that the language used in the petition could attract an action for contempt of the court. “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 CJI added.
CJI Sen said that the petitioners should show respect for the judicial institution. “How were you going to support this paragraph? You have to remember one thing. You have to respect the institution. We will come, we will go, but the institution will remain. You may criticise the judgment, no problem with that. But you are casting an aspersion,” he said.
“No one knows how the Bench was constituted. That only I know. None of you knows about it. That was a regular roster bench. Did you enquire about it? You tarnish the image of the institution. You argue the law. But do not attack a judge, do not attack a Bench. That I will not tolerate. Persons who are aggrieved can go to the Supreme Court. As a coordinate bench, my other Division Bench has decided the matter correctly or wrongly. Once it has attained some kind of finality, some decorum has to be maintained,” Chief Justice Sen said, directing the petitioners to file a fresh petition.
The CJI particularly called out petitioner Mehnaz P Mohammed, who is an advocate, and said that such remarks against the judges were not expected from him. “You are an advocate. You are wearing the robe. You are an officer of the court. You are making such loose comments in the petition,” CJI Sen remarked.
The counsel of the petitioners tendered an unconditional apology and said that the objectionable paragraphs of the petition could be deleted. “Milord, I request that this inadvertent observation may not prejudice the cause in this public interest litigation. I sincerely apologise for this. Subsequent to the release of the movie, there have been serious issues of public disorder,” the petitioners’ counsel said.
“You have referred to the Division Bench order as an argumentative statement. You can record the order, but you can’t make an argument like this in a petition before a coordinate-Bench. Judicial discipline is there,” the High Court replied, allowing the filing of a fresh petition.
The petitioners had contended that the move portrayed the state of Kerala as a failed state and that Muslim characters in the movie were depicted through an ‘Islamophobic lens’.
