Kerala is secular, lives in harmony: Kerala High Court quizzes CBFC over approval to movie Kerala Story 2

The Kerala High Court on Tuesday questioned the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) over the certification granted to the contentious movie 'The Kerala Story 2 - Goes Beyond'. [Sreedev Namboodiri v. Union of India & Ors and connected cases].

Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas was considering three petitions which sought a stay on the film's release and cancellation of its certification over concerns that it may cause communal rife.

Justice Thomas emphasised that the CBFC has a crucial role to play when the movie seemingly shows a secular state like Kerala through a communal lense.

"Kerala is so secular. It lives with total harmony but have you considered this when something is portrayed as happening all over the state? There is a wrong indication and can even incite passion and that is when the censor board (CBFC) comes in picture", he said.

The judge observed that since the film claims to be based on true events, the concerns raised by the petitioners regarding misrepresentation and inciting communal tensions seemed justified.

"The film is projected as being inspired by true events and that, prima facie shows that the concerns raised by the petitioners appear to have some justification", Justice Thomas said.

Justice Thomas orally remarked that considering the fact that the name of the State is included in the title of the film, the apprehensions of the people of Kerala cannot be ignored.

"Apprehensions of people in Kerala cannot be ignored because you have given the name Kerala. Normally, I do not interfere with any movie because it is a creation of an art but then you say it is inspired by true events and named it Kerala, which can create some communal tension", Justice Thomas said.

Justice Thomas also questioned whether the film complies with notifications issued by the CBFC itself which bars visuals or words contemptuous of racial, religious, and other similar groups.

"See freedom of creativity is there but there are certain conditions by the CBFC to be followed. Question is are you aware of that. Presumption can be reversed by the movie itself but this is not just creation, you say it is inspired by true events. That has great bearing," Justice Thomas remarked.

Senior Advocate S Sreekumar, representing the producers, agreed to remove the teasers that have been released thus far, until the Court passes its verdict.

He also said that a screening could be arranged so that Justice Kurian could watch the film before deciding the case.

Justice Thomas reiterated that while the Court usually refrains from infringing upon artistic freedom, the issue at hand requires serious consideration considering the religious theme of the film.

"I don’t want to interfere with the artistic expression but the law and guidelines laid down indicate certain restrictions, when it comes to religious matters," he said.

The Court then decided to hear the matter further at 2 pm today.

One of the petitions was filed by a Kannur native named Sreedev Namboodiri, alleging that the film portrays Kerala in an unfair and stigmatising manner, further adding that releasing of such a movie has the potential of inciting communal and regional disharmony along with law and order issues.

'The Kerala Story 2' is a sequel to the controversial Hindi film 'The Kerala story'.

The first film had depicted a group of women from Kerala being recruited into the Islamic state of Iraq and Syria (ISIS).

According to Namboodiri, the promotional material of the sequel, including the teaser and trailer, contains themes and dialogues capable of provoking the public.

He particularly objected to the closing message in the teaser which stated 'ab sahenge nahin… ladenge’ (we will not tolerate it anymore, but will fight). He argued that the dialogue amounted to a call for confrontation that could trigger violence in the community.

Namboodiri, therefore, challenged the certification granted to the sequel, stating that the CBFC failed to properly assess the impact of the movie on public order, decency and morality as required under Section 5B of the Cinematograph Act of 1952.

The second petition, filed by one Freddy V Francis, has also sought a ban on the release of the movie.

Francis also challenged the use of the word 'Kerala' in the title, arguing that this usage is a calculated attempt to misrepresent the culture and identity of the state.

According to the petitioners, although the narrative involves characters from multiple States, including Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh, the film title exclusively references Kerala, thereby associating terrorism and forced religious convention exclusively to the State of Kerala.

Freddy described the naming of the movie as a form of 'marketing of hate' intended to stigmatise the state. He also questioned the claim that the film is inspired by true events stating that no empirical data or judicial findings have been presented to substantial this narrative.

Both the petitioners submitted that the movie undermines the dignity and reputation of Keralaites by infringing the constitutional protections under Article 14 (right to equality) and 21 (right to life and liberty) as well as the violation of reasonable restrictions to freedom of speech under article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution.

The petitioners said that the film's certification should be quashed, and there should be directions for modifications to the film, including reconsideration of the title and insertion of adequate disclaimers to prevent regional vilification.

A third petition was filed by advocate Athul Roy, who appeared party-in-person challenged the certification granted to the film and objected to the use of the term 'Kerala'. However, Roy did not seek a ban on the film burt only a reconsideration of the title.

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

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

The producer of the movie, Sunshine Pictures, was represented by Senior Advocate Sreekumar, and advocates Ameet naik, Madhu Gadodia, Nithyesh, Annirudh and Jasmeet.

[Read live coverage of hearing]