Kerala High Court upholds quashing of CBFC's objections to film Haal

A Division Bench of the Kerala High Court on Friday dismissed the appeals challenging a single-judge ruling that had quashed 4 of the 6 cuts ordered by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) to the Malayalam film Haal [Addl. 5 Catholic Congress v Juby Thomas & ors and connected case].

The Division Bench of Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice PV Balakrishnan has dismissed an appeal filed by the CBFC in the matter.

It also dismissed an appeal by a Christian outfit named the Catholic Congress of the Thamarassery Diocese, which had claimed that the film has content that defamed the Thamarassery bishop for allegedly endorsing interfaith marriages.

The appeals had challenged a November 14 ruling that had set aside the cuts ordered by the CBFC, except for two (excisions 5 and 6), which the filmmakers had agreed to carry out before resubmitting the film for certification.

Since the film is yet to receive its final certificate, the Division Bench had earlier watched the film before deciding the appeals filed against the single judge's decision.

The film was subsequently viewed by the Court on December 3 in the presence of counsel representing all sides.

After having watched the film, the Division Bench today dismissed the appeals filed by the CBFC and the Catholic Congress.

The Catholic Congress had claimed that the film depicted the Thamarassery Bishop and Bishop House without consent, and that some scenes could disturb communal harmony.

The organisation argued that the film portrayed the Bishop without any permission, filmed the Bishop House without any consent, and posed a potential threat to social and communal harmony.

It contended that the single judge erred in overturning excisions 2, 3 and 4 and submitted that since the filmmakers had agreed to excisions 5 and 6, allowing only those cuts would be “biased to one group."

The Division Bench, however, questioned how the Catholic Congress could seek substantive relief through an appeal when it had not filed the writ petition before the single judge. Notably, the Catholic Congress had only sought impleadment in the case before the single judge.

The writ petition before the single judge had been filed by the filmmakers, opposing the CBFC's objections to the film.

The single-judge had eventually told the CBFC to take a fresh call on the grant of censor certificate, but quashed 4 out of its 6 earlier objections.

The single judge did not go into the merits of the remaining two suggested cuts, since the filmmakers themselves agreed to make those two cuts.

The CBFC filed an appeal challenging the single-judge ruling before the Division Bench. The Catholic Congress too filed an appeal against this ruling.

The Division Bench, however, questioned how the Catholic Congress could file such an appeal.

“How can you compel them to remove? It is their film. Please tell us any law being a respondent what relief can we grant. Whatever relief is granted is granted to the petitioner. We are very clear no relief can be granted to you," the Bench told counsel representing the Catholic Congress.

The Court indicated that if the organisation wanted independent relief, it would have to file its own petition rather than pursue relief through a writ appeal in a case where it was only a respondent.

The Union government and the CBFC had argued that the single judge should not have heard the filmmakers’ petitioner at all.

According to them, the Cinematograph Act already provides a specific appeal process for anyone unhappy with a CBFC order, and the filmmakers should have used that route instead of approaching the High Court directly.

Defending all 6 cuts in the film, the CBFC said that these changes were permitted and fell within the purview of reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2) of the Constitution, where freedom of expression can be restricted for reasons such as public order, decency, morality or to prevent defamation.

The Division Bench, however, has concluded that there was no reason to overturn the single judge’s order and dismissed the appeals.

Senior counsel 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.