Evan V


The Kerala High Court on Tuesday sought instructions from the Union Government on whether a screening of the film The Kerala Story 2: Goes Beyond could be arranged for the Court, while hearing writ petitions challenging the grant of certification to the film by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC).

Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas, after perusing portions of the film’s dialogue transcript, made oral observations expressing concern that the portrayal could create a misleading impression of the State of Kerala and potentially provoke communal sensitivities.

During the hearing, the Court orally observed that the social reality in Kerala is one of communal harmony and questioned whether the film’s content and title conveyed an incorrect, potentially inflammatory impression. The Judge remarked: "Kerala lives in total harmony. But you have portrayed that this is happening all over Kerala. There is a wrong indication and can also incite passion. That is where the censor board comes into play. Have you considered that?"

Also Read: Employees' Compensation Act | Statutory Penalty For Employer's Default In Timely Payment Of Compensation Not Transferable To Insurer; Supreme Court

The Court further observed that the apprehensions raised by residents of Kerala could not be lightly brushed aside, particularly given that the State's name appears in the film title.

Emphasising that courts ordinarily exercise restraint in matters concerning artistic freedom, the Judge nevertheless noted the relevance of the film’s own claim that it is “inspired by true events,” and orally stated: "...Normally, I do not interfere with any movie. Artistic freedom. But you are saying that it is inspired by true events and name Kerala is given, which can create some communal tension. I will watch the movie tomorrow. You can arrange a screening of the movie tomorrow,"

The Court initially asked the Union to obtain instructions by the post-lunch session on whether the film could be screened for judicial viewing before further consideration of the petitions. In this context, the Court also observed: "Get instructions as to whether the movie can be screened. Can't render that petition as infructuous. How long would the central govt to decide on the representation? Get instructions by 1:45...All these presumptions can rebutted if the movie depicts something that can incite communal violence,"

When the matter was taken up again later in the day, senior counsel appearing for the producer submitted that the petitions could be argued on merits and that a counter-affidavit could also be filed. The Court thereafter posted the matter for hearing on the following day.

One of the petitioners argued that while the title specifically refers to Kerala, the film is stated to depict a broader, pan-India narrative. It was contended that this creates a misleading association between the alleged acts depicted in the film and the State of Kerala.

The petitioners also relied on recent observations of the Supreme Court in Atul Mishra v. Union of India (challenging the proposed title “Ghooskhor Pandit”) to submit that a film title ought not to denigrate an entire community or section.

It was further argued that the teaser was being exhibited without certification. In response, the filmmakers submitted that the teaser content was not part of the final film.

At that stage, the Court orally observed that if the teaser content was indeed distinct from the film, that could be a relevant consideration, and asked whether a screening could be arranged. The Court also remarked that while it was personally reluctant to curtail artistic freedom, the governing legal framework does contemplate restrictions in appropriate circumstances.

On behalf of the filmmakers, it was argued that once certification has been granted, a presumption operates in favour of the film. The Court, however, orally observed that such a presumption is not absolute and may be tested against the contents of the film itself, especially where the film claims to be based on “true events.” The Court also referred to applicable conditions and standards framed by the Central Government under the certification regime.

The petitioners contend that the CBFC certification was granted in violation of the Cinematograph Act, 1952. According to them, while the trailer/teaser may include narratives featuring women from different States, the use of “Kerala” in the title may create the impression that the alleged acts are attributable solely to Kerala, thereby stigmatising the State and risking communal or regional disharmony.

Also Read: Recognising Single Mother As Complete Parent Is Constitutional Fidelity, Not Charity: Bombay High Court Orders Removal Of Father's Name And Caste From Child's School Records

Another petitioner also submitted that, following the release of the first The Kerala Story, prejudice against Malayalis and persons from Kerala had increased. In response, the Court noted the relevance of government guidelines prohibiting visuals or words contemptuous of racial, religious or other groups.

The High Court had issued notice to the filmmakers last week in one petition, and a subsequent writ petition challenging the film was also filed. The Deputy Solicitor General of India accepted notice on behalf of the CBFC in the latter matter.

The earlier film in the franchise, The Kerala Story, had also been the subject of litigation before the High Court and the Supreme Court.

Case Titles: Sreedev Namboodiri v. Union of India and Ors. and Freddy V. Francis v. Union of India and Ors.

Case Nos.: WP(C) 6574/2026 and WP(C) 6854/2026

Bench: Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas