Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Kerala Single Bench of Justice V.G. Arun set aside the Central Board of Film Certification’s decision to grant an adults-only certificate with multiple mandatory deletions to the film Haal, except for two cuts the makers agreed to carry out, and directed the authority to issue a fresh certification after resubmission . In doing so, the Court observed that the depiction of a Christian girl wearing Muslim attire in a dance sequence could not be regarded as indecent, immoral, or capable of provoking violence. The dispute centred on whether the Board could rely on claimed religious sensitivities to impose restrictive certification and excisions. The Court held that the suggested cuts were unsupported under the governing guidelines and that the film must be evaluated as a whole within the constitutional framework regulating artistic expression.

The petition was filed by the producer and director of the Malayalam film Haal, challenging the decision of the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC), which granted the film an “A” certificate with several required excisions and modifications.  The petitioners contended that the suggested deletions infringed their freedom of expression and that the film’s message—depicting a relationship between a Muslim man and a Christian woman—was presented within a broader theme of coexistence and mutual respect. They argued that the Board had assessed isolated scenes without considering the film as a whole, contrary to the statutory guidelines issued under Section 5B(2) of the Cinematograph Act, 1952. They also stated that certain scenes, particularly those relating to religious depictions, were misinterpreted and did not violate any certification norms. The makers further clarified that they did not oppose two of the suggested deletions.

Also Read: “No Good Reason To Disbelieve” Parents’ Account: Supreme Court Upholds POCSO Conviction And Reduces Sentence To 6 Years

The respondents, including the Union Government and additional parties representing community organisations, argued that the film contained sensitive portrayals relating to interfaith relationships and community leaders, and that certain visuals and dialogues could disturb public order. They relied on principles under Article 19(2) and the certification guidelines, asserting that the Board acted within its mandate when recommending the modifications.

The Court recorded that: “the movie has unique capacity to disturb and arouse feelings… It has as much potential for evil as it has for good.” The judgment quoted the discussion on how cinema “motivates thought and action and assures a high degree of attention and retention.”

After viewing the film along with counsel, the Court observed that the narrative depicted “the romantic relationship between two youngsters, a Muslim boy and a Christian girl,” who face resistance from their families and communities. It recorded that the film concluded with acceptance of their relationship by religious leaders after the characters assert that “love has no religion and it is possible for them to follow their individual religious beliefs even after marriage.”

In assessing the statutory framework, the Court stated that “such power cannot be exercised according to the whims and fancies of the authority.” It reproduced guidelines prohibiting visuals contemptuous of religious groups or involving defamation and requiring that a film “is judged in its entirety from the point of view of its overall impacts.”

The Court observed that societal issues must be “viewed through the prism of constitutional values and refracted through the foundational principles of justice, liberty, equality and fraternity.” It found that the film’s theme aligned with these principles and stated: “It is beyond comprehension as to how the above theme can be termed as misrepresentation of inter-faith relationships.” The Court recorded that observations by the Board’s experts were “unsustainable when pitted against the larger theme of the film.”

It further observed that showing “a Christian girl wearing Muslim attire” or “an interrogation scene at the police station with schoolboys present” could not be considered indecent or capable of inciting violence. It recorded that depiction of a Bishop falls “well within the artistic freedom guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a).”

Also Read: Kerala High Court Upholds NCC’s Present Gender-Based Enrollment Scheme; Transgender Exclusion Not Unconstitutional, Centre Directed To Review Law For Inclusivity

Regarding the standard for judging films, the Court relied on precedent stating that the test is that of “an ordinary man of commonsense and prudence and not that of an out of the ordinary or hypersensitive man.” The Court found that the Board had focused on whether the film would “ruffle a few oversensitive feathers” rather than applying the correct standard. It observed that balancing of expression and restrictions cannot be done by “overlooking the foundational principles of secularism and fraternity which are the bedrock of our great democracy.”

The Court ordered: “For the aforementioned reasons, the writ petition is allowed and Ext.P6 decision, except excision Nos.5 and 6, quashed. On the petitioners resubmitting the film after carrying out excision Nos.5 and 6, the Board shall examine the film following the prescribed procedure and issue fresh certification, within two weeks of re-submission.”

Advocates Representing The Parties

For the Petitioners: Sr. Adv. Joseph Kodianthara instructed by Adv. E.S. Saneeje; Shri. John Vithayathil

For the Respondents: Shri. Rajagopalan A., CGC; Smt. Mariya Rajan; Shri. S. Anil Kumar (Cherthala); Sri. Shinu J. Pillai; Smt. S. Suja; Smt. Ann Mariya John; Shri. Felix Samson Varghese; Shri. P. Sreekumar (Sr.)

Case Title: Juby Thomas & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025: KER:87147
Case Number: W.P.(C) No. 37251 of 2025
Bench: Justice V.G. Arun