The makers of the Malayalam film Haal on Friday got relief from the Kerala High Court in connection with the controversy over whether the film can be released for unrestricted public exhibition (or only for viewing by adults) and whether six cuts suggested by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) need to be carried out [Juby Thomas & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.].

Justice VG Arun today quashed a CBFC order which said that the film would only be given an A (Adults only) certificate if six modifications are carried out.

While setting aside the CBFC order, the Court clarified that it was not going to examine the validity of two deletions since the petitioners had agreed to remove the same on their own.

The two cuts/modifications relate to:

1) deletion of scene where beef biriyani is eaten, deletion of dialogues that demean certain cultural organisations and blur 'rakhi' where seen;

2) deletion of a dialogue - "Adhil thanne... matha thilekkumii kanu..."

The other changes suggested by CBFC were the deletion of a song where the lead actress appears in Muslim attire, deletion of scenes that allegedly stereotyped communities, blurring of the name "Holy Angels" from an institution featured in the film, deletion of certain dialogues that could allegedly affect Christian sentiments, and the modification or deletion of scenes featuring the Thamarassery bishop.

The Court directed the Revising Committee to reconsider the certification after properly watching the entire film and the CBFC was ordered to decide the matter within two weeks.

Justice Arun had earlier watched the film to assess whether the objections raised by the CBFC were justified.

In today's order, the Judge emphasised that the certification authorities should evaluate a film's overall theme and impact rather than isolating select scenes.

He noted that the CBFC appeared to have focused disproportionately on elements concerning interfaith relationships, religious sensitivities, without appreciating the broader narrative of secular co-existence and social harmony, which the film attempted to present.

"Upon viewing the film from the perspective of an ordinary person, this Court found the theme of the film to be in tune with the foundational principles enunciated in our Constitution. It is beyond comprehension as to how the above theme can be termed as misrepresentation of inter-faith relationships, or portrayal of legitimate warnings from Hindu and Christian leaders, as unfounded and intolerant," the judge said.

The film depicts an interfaith love story between a Muslim boy and a Christian girl.

The CBFC had asked the filmmakers to delete certain scenes and offered to certify the film as 'A' for its release, only after these modifications were carried out.

This was challenged by the film's producer and director before the High Court.

During the hearings, Senior Advocate Joseph Kodianthara, appearing for the petitioners, argued that the CBFC had failed to consider the overall theme of the movie before suggesting the cuts.

He argued that there was no violence or sexually explicit content to justify an 'A' certificate and criticised the lack of logical reasoning behind the CBFC's suggestions for cuts.

However, the Additional Solicitor General ARL Sundaresan, appearing for CBFC, defended the decision to grant an ‘A’ certificate, stressing that the movie had 'crossed the Lakshman Rekha' by touching upon matters sensitive to two religions. He further stated that the movie had scenes which created 'unease' and therefore, warranted cuts.

The Board, he said, is duty-bound to ensure that films maintain public order and do not hurt religious sentiments.

"The Board exists to balance creative freedom with public sensitivity," ASG submitted.

However, during these hearings, the Court questioned whether unease alone could justify censorship.

"There may be unease, but can that unease by itself be a ground?," Justice Arun orally questioned.

Notably, two separate groups also moved the Court claiming the film to contain offensive portrayals of their faith and organisations

A Christian organisation called the Catholic Congress, from the Thamarassery Diocese, alleged that the film portrayed the Thamarassery Bishop as supporting an interfaith relationship. They alleged that this was done without the consent of the Bishop, making it defamatory.

They further claimed that the film promoted 'love jihad' and could potentially hurt the religious sentiments of the Christian community and affect communal harmony.

They cited specific scenes, including one where the heroine is initially introduced as 'Mariya Fernandez' and later referred to as 'Maria Asif Kadalundi', describing such scenes to be a calculated attempt to alter the character's religious identity and normalise interfaith conversion.

Another scene cited allegedly showed nuns and hostel authorities as restrictive, forcing girls into moral conformity and discouraging interactions with students of other faiths.

Another applicant named Anil MP, who serves as an office-bearer under the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), contended that the film made defamatory references to the RSS.

He argued that the portrayal of the organisation in the movie was injurious to the sentiments of the supporters of RSS. He also argued that the film promoted anti-national and religiously disharmonious themes and was therefore ineligible for certification under the Cinematograph (Certification) Rules, 2024.

Senior Advocate Joseph Kodianthara appeared for the filmmakers, along with advocates ES Saneej and John Vithayathil.

Additional Solicitor General ARL Sundaresan represented the CBFC.

Catholic Congress was represented by advocate Shinu J Pillai.

Senior Advocate P Sreekumar appeared for the RSS office bearer.

Note: An earlier version of the story incorrectly said that the Court had directed the filmmakers to delete the beef biriyani scene and make other cuts. The error is regretted.

[Read Judgment]

[Live Coverage]