The Kerala High Court on Tuesday, February 24, asked the Centre to clarify whether a screening of The Kerala Story 2: Goes Beyond can be arranged before it takes a call on petitions challenging the film’s censor certification. The pleas have raised concerns that the film portrays the state in a bad light.
During the hearing, Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas referred to certain dialogues from the film and said they gave a misleading impression about Kerala. The judge noted that while people in the state live peacefully, the film appeared to suggest otherwise, which could have wider implications.
“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?” the Judge said. He added that the apprehension of people in Kerala “cannot be ignored”, especially since the State’s name has been used in the title. “…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 Judge said, as per Live Law.
The Court then asked the Centre to take instructions and respond in the post-lunch session. “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,” the judge said.
One of the petitioners argued that while the title refers to Kerala, the film itself appears to present a broader, pan-India narrative. The counsel pointed out that in a meeting held in Delhi, the victims of terror acts discussed were not from Kerala. When questioned earlier, the filmmakers had also said the film was not limited to Kerala. On that basis, the petitioner argued that using the State’s name in the title could be misleading.
The petitioner also cited the Supreme Court’s observations in Atul Mishra v. Union Of India related to the proposed Netflix film Ghooskhor Pandat, where it was noted that a film title should not denigrate a section of society. It was submitted that in that case, the makers were asked to change the title.
On the other side, the filmmakers argued that once a film is certified, it carries a presumption in its favour. The Court, however, pointed out that such a presumption is not absolute and must align with conditions set by the central government. “…The presumption can be rebutted by the movie itself. Once the movie is released, it is not just a creation. You are saying it is inspired by true events. It has a great bearing…In bold letters, you are saying inspired by true event. And in very microscopic letters you would have said the characters are all fictional…” it orally observed.
Another issue raised was that the teaser of the film was allegedly exhibited without certification. The filmmakers responded that the teaser content is not part of the film. At this stage, the Court asked, “Can you arrange for a movie watching for tomorrow? If you are saying that the content in the teaser is not in the movie, then there might be a point.” It added, “I don’t think last movie’s teaser was as serious…Personally, I don’t want to restrict any artist’s prerogatives but the law that has been laid down indicates certain restrictions.”
The producer sought time to take instructions on arranging a screening. The matter is scheduled to be taken up at 2 pm.
