Teaser Content Prima Facie Likely To Disturb Communal Harmony: Kerala High Court Stays ‘The Kerala Story 2’ Release, Directs CBFC Re-Examination
From the Editor's Desk
The Kerala High Court on Thursday (February 26) stayed the release of Kerala Story 2: Goes Beyond after petitions questioned how the film received censor clearance. The movie had been scheduled to release in theatres tomorrow.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas noted that the teaser itself—accepted as part of the film—raised immediate concerns. He observed, "...the very content in the teaser itself, which is conceded to be part of the movie, has the prima facie potential to distort the public perception and disturb communal harmony...There can be possibility that the State of Kerala, otherwise known for its communal harmony and friendly natives be identified by viewers across the world as a hub of fanatical and communal divide."
The Court said two of the petitioners had shown sufficient standing to bring the case, along with specific grievances and maintainability. It also pointed out that since the producer was not willing for the Court to view the film, the judge could not replace the assessment of the statutory authority—the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC)—with the Court’s own impression.
The order recorded that despite limited time, the Court had offered to watch the film to compare the allegations with the actual portrayal, but the producer declined. The judge remarked that a deeper evaluation might be required to examine whether the film contains sensitive themes, including how interfaith issues and visuals are presented.
The Court further stated that, at first glance, the CBFC appeared to have overlooked Central Government guidelines that caution against visuals that are contemptuous toward racial or religious groups, or that could encourage communal or anti-national attitudes or threaten public order. The judge held, "Dissemination of content which has a tendency to create discord, disturb law and order, even undermine social harmony cannot come within the gamut of freedom of speech and expression enshrined in Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India...Prima facie, these guidelines do not seem to have been borne in mind by the CBFC while granting certification and there is a manifest disregard of the applicable law necessitating for this Court to interfere.There is nothing to indicate that the 2nd respondent (CBFC) considered any of the above factors while certifying the movie for release, that too by a U/A 16+ certification," the Court added.
As part of the directions, the Central Government was asked to decide—within two weeks—on a revision petition submitted by one of the petitioners before the CBFC Chairperson. Meanwhile, the CBFC and the producer were instructed to ensure the film is not released to the public for 15 days from today.
Although the producer’s side relied on a judgment to argue that interim relief should not be granted when an alternative remedy exists, the Court concluded that a temporary stay was necessary in the circumstances. It clarified that it had not declined to entertain the petitions.
During earlier proceedings, the Court had indicated it was open to watching the film before ruling, but the producer did not agree, maintaining that the matter could be argued on legal merits alone. The High Court had also made an oral observation during the hearing: "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," the judge had remarked.
After hearing detailed submissions from the petitioners, the producer’s senior counsel, and the CBFC, the Court reserved its verdict, later issuing the interim order.
The petitioners argued that certification was granted without proper compliance with requirements under the Cinematograph Act. They contended that the film’s title, paired with themes such as forced conversions and terrorism, could brand the entire State unfairly and potentially inflame communal sentiment. One petitioner also claimed that after the release of the earlier film, The Kerala Story—which was itself the subject of multiple legal challenges—there were reports of unrest and increased hostility toward Kerala and Keralites in India and overseas.
They also highlighted statements made during promotion suggesting the new film was not specifically about Kerala but portrayed a broader, pan-Indian narrative. They argued that even the victims presented in relation to alleged terrorist acts were not from Kerala and therefore objected to the use of “Kerala” in the title when the storyline was not centred on the State.
On the other hand, the producer’s senior counsel questioned whether the petitions were maintainable, arguing they resembled public interest litigation and did not reflect personal harm, but rather an attempt to safeguard the collective reputation of Kerala.
The petitioners responded that the existence of others with similar grievances should not negate their right to seek relief. One petitioner also pointed out that the respondents challenged locus formally only in one of the cases.
In one petition, the transcript of the teaser uploaded on YouTube was submitted, and the Court indicated it contained content that could be objectionable. The CBFC’s counsel argued the teaser and trailer were not certified by the Board, and therefore the CBFC had no role in what was posted on social media. It was also asserted that the teaser content complained of did not appear in the film.
The Court observed that the petitions did not specifically seek relief against the teaser or trailer and noted that other legal options may be available if objectionable material is circulated online. In response, the petitioners argued that the filmmakers were attempting indirectly what they could not do directly, and that such a course should not be allowed. The Court also noted that because the producer was unwilling to screen the film, it was difficult to verify what the film actually contained.
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the petitioners: Maitreyi Sachidananda Hegde, Rizla K.M., Deepika K. Sasi & Sreerag Shylan, Ferha Azeez, Devananda S.
For the respondents: S. Sreekumar (Senior Counsel) for the producer
Case Titles: Sreedev Namboodiri v. Union of India and Ors.; Freddy V. Francis v. Union of India and Ors.; Athul Roy v. Ministry of Information and Broadcasting and Ors
Case Nos: WP(C) 6574/2026, WP(C) 6854/2026 and WP(C) 7296/2026
Bench: Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas
