The Kerala High Court on Thursday stayed the release of the movie 'The Kerala Story 2 – Goes Beyond'. [Sreedev Namboodiri v. Union of India & Ors and connected cases]

Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas passed the interim order on petitions challenging the certification granted by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) for the release of the film.

The petitioners had contended that the movie misrepresents the state of Kerala and its release could incite communal disharmony.

The Court opined that prima facie there was an absence of application of mind by the CBFC while granting certification. It, therefore, directed the CBFC to consider the revision petitions filed by the petitioners before the board within a period of two weeks.

The Court ordered that the movie shall not be released for a period of 15 days.

"The repeated portrayal of the theme in a second movie almost of the same name and concept, as evident from the admitted scenes in the sequel movie, can have a tendency to create contempt for a religious group in the State and to the State itself, tend to promote communal and even fanatical attitudes and even endanger public order. There can be a possibility that the State of Kerala, otherwise known for its communal harmony and friendly natives, be identified by viewers across the globe, as a hub of fanatical and communal divide. There is nothing to indicate that the second respondent had considered any of the above factors while certifying the movie for release that too by a UA16+ certification," the Court stated in its order.

It also said that while the Court is usually hesitant when it comes to interfering with the release of films, it has to step in when the alleged content of the film could have the genuine potential of inciting communal disharmony.

'The Kerala Story 2 – Goes Beyond' is a sequel to the controversial Hindi film, 'The Kerala Story', which portrayed the alleged recruitment of women from Kerala into the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS).

The present petitions arose amid continuing controversy surrounding the sequel, much like the earlier film, which drew widespread criticism for its depiction of religious radicalisation of women and its alleged impact on the image of Kerala.

One petition was filed by Kannur native Sreedev Namboodiri, who alleged that the sequel movie's title and promotional materials, including the teaser and trailer, contained themes and dialogues capable of inciting violence and unfairly stigmatised the state of Kerala.

Namboodiri objected to the teaser's closing line 'ab sahenge nahin… ladenge’ (we will not tolerate it anymore, but will fight), arguing that it amounted to a call for confrontation capable of triggering communal violence.

He also challenged the CBFC certification on the ground that the board failed to assess the film's impact on public order, decency and morality as mandated under Section 5B of the Cinematograph Act, 1952.

Another petition by Freddie V Francis sought a ban on the film's release and challenged the use of the term 'Kerala' in the title, arguing that it falsely associated the state with terrorism and forced religious conversion, despite the film's story involving characters from other states.

He termed this as 'marketing of hate' and questioned the claim that the film is based on true events.

The petitioners contended that the movie's certification and exhibition was violative of Article 14 (right to equality) and 21 (right to life and liberty) along with Article 19(1)(a)of the Indian Constitution which provides reasonable restrictions to freedom of speech.

A third petition was filed by advocate Athul Roy which questioned the certification and the title of the movie.

The Court today dismissed Roy's petition and passed the interim order on Namboodiri and Francis's petitions.

Senior Advocate S Sreekumar, appearing for the producers, raised the issue of locus standi and argued that the petitioners were not personally aggrieved by the film's release. He claimed that the petitioners were merely raising a general public grievance which should essentially be in the nature of a public interest litigation and not private.

He argued that the relief sought by the petitioners is not sustainable based on a 2-minute teaser and contended that the film had cleared all legal requirements and got the CBFC's approval for its release.

The counter filed by the producers also mentioned that the High Court can't substitute the CBFC's opinion, which is the expert body entrusted with certification of movies. The producers opposed any change to the title, stating that the film depicted a multi-state narrative, where the phrase "Goes beyond" indicated that the story is not confined to Kerala alone.

They also pointed out that the petitions filed petitions 16 days after the teaser.

The producers contended that the petitioners could not claim to speak for the 'collective dignity of people of Kerala.'

The counsel for CBFC also argued that the objections to the title cannot be assessed without examining the actual content of the film.

Advocates Maitreyi Sachchidananda Hegde, Rizla KM, Deepika K Sasi appeared for Namboodiri.

Advocates Sreerag Shylan, Ferha Azeez and Devananda S represented Francis.

Senior counsel Elvin Peter PJ appeared for the producer, Sunshine Pictures.

[Read Order]

[Read Live Coverage]