The Kerala High Court on Thursday took strong objection to the aspersions cast by certain petitioners against judges who had lifted the stay on release of the movie Kerala Story 2: Goes Beyond [Chandramohan KC & anr v Union of India & ors].

A Bench of Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar VM took critical note of submissions made by petitioners who moved the Court against the release of the movie.

The Bench was hearing a fresh Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition against the movie when it noted certain arguments in the petition against another Division Bench of Justices SA Dharmadhikari and PV Balakrishnan who had lifted the stay on the movie.

"This is inconsequential for deciding the matter. You are casting an aspersion against another coordinate bench. How can you make a statement like this?" the Chief Justice asked.

By way of background, a single-judge Bench of the High Court had initially stayed the film's release on the afternoon of February 26 on another PIL petition filed against the film.

However, on an appeal filed by the filmmakers, a Division Bench of the Court comprising Justices SA Dharmadhikari and PV Balakrishnan lifted this stay order on February 27, after a detailed urgent hearing on the evening of February 26. A final verdict on the appeal is pending. The film was then released in movie theatres and continue to be screened,

The fresh petition against the movie, which came up before the Bench of Chief Justice today, was moved by Chandramohanan KC, a retired social science teacher and social activist, along with advocate Mehnaz P Mohammed.

The petitioners objected to the film defaming and targeting Kerala by claiming that the State was the epicentre of terrorism and radicalisation and by branding it as a "terror nursery" without any authentic supporting data and even though the characters depicted in the movie are from multiple states of India.

"Kerala as a whole is portrayed as a failed State and vilified as the root of this alleged propaganda," the petition added.

The petition stated that more than 150 characters in the film portrayed as Muslims were depicted through 'Islamophobic lens', and not one ordinary peace-loving Muslim character was shown in the movie, thereby depicting the entire Muslim community as evil.

The petitioners also stated that the continued use of the title 'The Kerala Story' for a multi-State fictional narrative amounted to unconstitutional branding of Kerala and infringed the collective dignity and reputation of its citizens and Article 21 of the Constitution.

The petitioner thus sought a direction to the Union government and CBFC to ensure that the film is not exhibited to the public under a title containing the words 'Kerala' or 'Keralam.'

Pertinently, the petition questioned the manner in which the appeal was mentioned and heard urgently by the Bench of Justice Dharmadhikari on the same day.

The petitioners contended that the filmmakers were able to make the mention the matter before that Division Bench even before the single-judge's interim stay order was published on the Court's website.

The Division Bench of Chief Justice Somen and Syam Kumar today took a dim view of this submission, noting that such arguments appear to cast unfair aspersions on 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 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," Chief Justice Somen remarked.

"It is widely reported in the media," replied the petitioners' counsel.

However, the Court maintained that the same was inconsequential to the present plea.

The Bench noted that such remarks could even attract action for contempt of court, adding that such allegations were being raised without complete information.

"You are making such statements without knowing the circumstances under which the matter was taken up? We can initiate contempt case for this," the Chief Justice said.

The petitioners' counsel then said that the controversial paragraph could be deleted.

"You file a fresh petition," the Chief Justice suggested.

He also urged the petitioners to show more respect for the judicial institution, adding that while judges may come and go, the institution must remain.

'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.

The petitioners' counsel offered his unconditional apology. The Chief Justice responded by making it clear that the Court will not tolerate personal attacks on judges.

"No one knows how the Bench was constituted. That only I know. None of you know about it. That was a regular roster bench. Did you enquire about it? You tarnish the image of the institution. You argue on 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 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," said Chief Justice Somen.

Since a lawyer was a co-petitioner in the PIL, the Chief justice said that such comments in the petition were not expected from a lawyer.

"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," he remarked.

The petitioners' counsel, in turn, urged the Court not to reject the petition only because of this issue, assuring that it was an inadvertent submission. Kerala Story 2's release has caused serious law and order issues, he added.

"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," he 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 Court maintained.

The Court eventually allowed the petitioners to file a fresh petition without the controversial submissions flagged today.

It recorded that the petitioners' counsel have undertaken to delete three paragraphs containing such submissions and that a fresh petition would be filed thereafter.

The PIL was moved by advocate Chelson Chembarathy.

[Live coverage of today's hearing]