Follow TNM's WhatsApp channel for news updates and story links.
The Kerala High Court, on Friday, February 27, lifted the stay the release of the controversial film The Kerala Story 2: Goes Beyond. The order was passed by a division bench based on an appeal filed by the makers of the film against a single judge’s interim stay on the film’s release, which was scheduled for February 27.
A division bench of Justices Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and PV Balakrishnan heard urgent arguments late in the evening, hours after the single judge, Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas, had stayed the release of the film, citing concerns over its teaser and possible impact on communal harmony. The single judge also noted that the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) may not have properly followed certification guidelines while granting a UA 16+ certificate, and directed the CBFC to reconsider the objections within two weeks.
During the later hearing, the division bench questioned how the single judge had drawn conclusions about the film’s effect without watching it, observing that such serious findings ordinarily require examination of the content itself. The judges also asked whether the petitions challenging the film were, in substance, public interest litigations and if they ought to have been placed before a Division Bench under the High Court’s roster rules.
Appearing for the producers, senior advocate Neeraj Kishan Kaul argued that halting a film that has already been cleared by the CBFC was an extreme step. He contended that courts have consistently held that once a film is certified, its release should not be obstructed except in exceptional circumstances, LiveLaw reported.
Kaul pointed out that the petitions challenging the film were filed more than two weeks after the teaser was released and even described by the single judge as being moved at the “eleventh hour.” He argued that there had been no law and order issues reported during this period and questioned the urgency of the stay.
He also submitted that the single judge’s conclusions about the film’s potential to disturb communal harmony were drawn without watching the film. The Bench observed that such serious findings would ordinarily require examination of the content itself.
Raising concerns about maintainability, the producers’ counsel argued that the petitions were in the nature of a public interest litigation and should not have been entertained by a single judge under the High Court’s roster rules. The Bench questioned how the matter was heard and whether the petitioner had the locus standi to seek such relief.
Kaul further warned that last-minute stays on film releases cause severe commercial disruption and effectively suppress free speech through economic harm. He told the court that the film was scheduled to release in around 1,500 theatres worldwide and that the stay had halted both domestic and overseas releases.
Responding to these arguments, advocate Maitreyi Hegde, appearing for the original petitioner, maintained that the case was not a public interest litigation. She told the court that she had approached it in her personal capacity, arguing that the film’s portrayal of Kerala affected her fundamental right to reputation under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Hegde contended that a person’s identity includes their place of origin and that portraying Kerala as a site of alleged forced or romantic conversions was derogatory to people from the state. She clarified that she was not claiming to represent all Keralites, but was asserting her individual grievance.
She also pointed out that the single judge had sought to view the film, but the producers declined to screen it. According to her, the outcome could have been different had the film been shown to the court.
On the issue of statutory remedies, Hegde acknowledged that there was ambiguity regarding the revisionary powers under the Cinematograph Act following its amendment. However, she argued that the High Court could still exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226, particularly when fundamental rights were at stake.
After hearing arguments from both sides, the division bench reserved its order.