Introduction:

The Kerala High Court recently declined to stay the screening of the big-budget Malayalam film “Empuraan,” starring Mohanlal, which hit theaters on March 27. The petition was filed by BJP leader V. V. Vijeesh, who sought to halt the film’s exhibition, alleging that its portrayal of the 2002 Gujarat riots could incite communal violence. The Court, however, dismissed the plea, suspecting it to be a “publicity interest litigation” and affirming the role of the Censor Board in determining a film’s suitability for public screening. The case, registered as WP(C) 13500/2025, saw representation from multiple government agencies, including the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting and the Enforcement Directorate. The matter has been posted for further hearing after the summer vacation.

Arguments of the Petitioner:

V. V. Vijeesh, a BJP leader, contended that “Empuraan” contained sensitive content that could provoke communal unrest. He argued that the film’s depiction of the 2002 Gujarat riots was inflammatory and could disrupt public peace. The petitioner further stated that while the film had received certification from the Censor Board, new concerns had emerged post-release, necessitating judicial intervention. He urged the Court to immediately halt the film’s screening to prevent any potential law-and-order issues.

Arguments of the Respondents:

The respondents, including the Government Pleader and the Deputy Solicitor General of India, defended the film’s exhibition by emphasizing the legal sanctity of the certification process. They cited the judgment in Sebin Thomas v. Union of India and other relevant precedents, arguing that once a statutory body has certified a film, there is a presumption of its suitability for public viewing. They further informed the Court that no violent incidents had been reported in connection with the film since its release. The Court was also apprised that agencies such as the Enforcement Directorate and the Director General of Police were monitoring the situation, and no evidence suggested any public unrest linked to the film.

Court’s Judgment:

Justice C. S. Dias, presiding over the case, refused to grant an interim stay on the film’s screening. The Court questioned the petitioner’s intent, suspecting the plea to be more about publicity than genuine public interest. It observed that the film had already undergone the scrutiny of the Censor Board before its release, fulfilling all statutory requirements. The judge remarked that raising objections after certification amounted to unnecessary interference and unwarranted publicity. Additionally, the Court noted the absence of any reported incidents of violence triggered by the film and dismissed the urgency of the petitioner’s claim. The matter has been scheduled for further hearing after the summer vacation.