Follow TNM's WhatsApp channel for news updates and story links.
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday, February 25, asked the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) whether they have power to regulate a film’s teaser or trailer when they are released online without certification. The court posed the question while hearing pleas challenging the censor certification of The Kerala Story 2 Goes Beyond.
The teaser and trailer of the film have drawn criticism over their portrayal of the Muslim community and the state of Kerala.
Appearing before Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas, counsel for the CBFC submitted that the Board has no jurisdiction over uncertified promotional material released on the internet. The counsel added that if there are objections to such material, other remedial measures are available.
Justice Thomas observed that if the CBFC considers revision only after viewing the full film, any corrective step may become ineffective. “The damage is already done by then,” he remarked, according to the Bar and Bench.
During the hearing, the judge reiterated his request to view the film, noting that the makers were not inclined to screen it for the court. In the absence of a screening, he said he would have to rely on the transcripts of the teaser and trailer.
“You have a case that what is there in the teaser is not shown in the movie. As of now, none of us know what is there in the movie and they are not keen on showing us the movie. You are not keen on screening the movie,” the judge said, as reported by Live Law.
Referring to the transcripts submitted by the petitioners, the judge noted that the trailer begins with the words, “Sharia law will be implemented all over.” The trailer opens with the dialogue: “God willing in the next 25 years, India will be turned into an Islamic state. And Sharia will be implemented across the country.”
In response, the CBFC counsel argued that the statements cited by the petitioners may have been made by antagonist characters in the film and questioned whether such dialogue would amount to maligning the entire state.
The makers also challenged the locus standi of the petitioners, contending that the writ petitions were not maintainable. The court, however, observed that the question of maintainability would be decided by the court. Three petitioners have approached the High Court seeking to stall the film’s release.
Responding to this, advocate Maitreyi, appearing for one of the petitioners, submitted that her client is a resident of Kerala and that his reputation was affected by the portrayal. “My petitioner is a Keralite, born and brought up in Kerala. His reputation is affected. Place of birth and regional identity are important. His right to life is affected. There may be others with similar grievances, but I have my own grievances and my reputation is affected,” she argued.
She further alleged that the makers were drawing audiences with provocative content in the teaser and trailer. According to her, material that may not be permissible in the theatrical release was being circulated on social media. “What cannot be done directly is being done indirectly,” she submitted.
The judge orally said that the release of the film may have to be stayed until arguments are concluded.
“I will not cut short any lawyer’s arguments. If you are putting the Court in a corner, I will stay it. I will give you enough and more time, but do not release the film while the matter is pending,” he told the counsel for the makers.
The counsel responded that the film and its overseas rights had already been sold and that it was scheduled for release on February 27. He requested the court to reserve orders after the conclusion of arguments.