Introduction:

In Sreedev Namboodiri v. Union of India and Ors., along with connected matters Freddy V. Francis v. Union of India and Ors. and Athul Roy v. Ministry of Information and Broadcasting and Ors., the Kerala High Court stayed the release of the movie Kerala Story 2: Goes Beyond, which was scheduled to hit theatres the following day. Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas passed the interim order observing that the content reflected in the teaser, conceded to be part of the movie, had prima facie potential to distort public perception and disturb communal harmony. The Court further held that dissemination of content tending to create discord, disturb law and order, or undermine social harmony cannot be shielded under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. The challenge before the Court arose from writ petitions questioning the grant of certification by the Central Board of Film Certification under the Cinematograph Act, 1952. The petitioners contended that the statutory guidelines for certification had been ignored and that the title and narrative of the film stigmatized the State of Kerala by portraying themes of forced conversions and terrorism. The controversy was heightened by references to unrest allegedly following the prequel The Kerala Story. After detailed arguments from all sides and the producer’s refusal to screen the film privately for judicial viewing, the Court reserved and then pronounced its interim verdict staying release pending further consideration.

Arguments:

The petitioners argued that the grant of certification to the film was vitiated by non compliance with statutory mandates under the Cinematograph Act and the guidelines governing film certification. They contended that the very title of the movie coupled with its narrative conveyed a sweeping and stigmatizing message that the State of Kerala was a hub of forced religious conversions and terrorism. According to them, such portrayal would not only distort public perception but also incite communal passions and potentially lead to violence. It was submitted that the teaser transcript uploaded on YouTube contained objectionable statements which prima facie suggested a narrative capable of disturbing communal harmony. One of the petitioners pointed out that after the release of the prequel The Kerala Story, there were reported incidents of ill will against Kerala and Keralites in India and abroad, and that the sequel risked repeating or intensifying such consequences. The petitioners further argued that during promotional events the filmmakers themselves had stated that the story was pan Indian in character and not confined to Kerala, and that even the alleged victims portrayed were not from Kerala. Therefore, retaining the word Kerala in the title was misleading and unnecessarily targeted a specific region, thereby affecting its collective dignity. On the question of maintainability, the petitioners defended their locus standi, submitting that merely because multiple persons share a grievance does not render the plea a non maintainable public interest litigation. They asserted that they were directly affected as residents concerned about communal harmony and the reputation of their State. They also argued that the teaser and promotional materials were indirectly achieving what could not be done directly through the film, and that in the absence of a screening for the Court, it was impossible to verify the producer’s claim that the contentious content was not part of the movie.

The producer’s senior counsel raised a preliminary objection to maintainability, arguing that the petitions were in the nature of public interest litigations filed to protect the collective dignity of Kerala rather than any specific legal right. It was submitted that the petitioners had not demonstrated individual injury and were attempting to preemptively censor artistic expression. The producer’s counsel contended that the film had been duly certified by the CBFC and that courts should be slow to interfere with artistic works once statutory certification has been granted. On the teaser issue, it was argued that neither the teaser nor the trailer had been certified by the CBFC and therefore the Board could not be held responsible for any objectionable content circulating on social media. It was also pleaded that the teaser content complained of was not part of the final film. The CBFC’s counsel echoed this submission and maintained that certification was granted in accordance with applicable norms. It was further argued that if objectionable content was uploaded on social media, other statutory remedies were available and the writ petitions, which did not contain specific prayers against the teaser, were misconceived. The producer declined the Court’s earlier suggestion to privately screen the movie, submitting that the matter could be decided on legal principles without judicial viewing.

Judgment:

Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas, after hearing extensive submissions, passed an interim order staying the release of the film. The Court observed that the teaser content, which was conceded to form part of the movie, prima facie possessed the potential to distort public perception and disturb communal harmony. The Court emphasized that freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) is not absolute and is subject to reasonable restrictions in the interests of public order and harmony. It categorically held that dissemination of content tending to create discord or undermine social harmony cannot fall within the protective ambit of constitutional free speech. The Court expressed prima facie dissatisfaction with the manner in which the CBFC had granted certification, noting that the statutory guidelines require careful scrutiny of content that may inflame communal sentiments. It directed the Board to re examine the issue in light of the concerns raised. The Court took note of its earlier oral observations that Kerala is known for communal harmony and that portraying the entire State as being engulfed in extremist activities could incite passion and create wrong impressions. While acknowledging that the petitions did not specifically seek action against the teaser, the Court found that the teaser’s content was relevant in assessing the film’s impact since it was admitted to be part of the movie. The refusal of the producer to facilitate a screening left the Court to rely on available material, including transcripts placed on record. Considering the imminent release date and the potential consequences, the Court deemed it necessary to maintain status quo until further adjudication. The stay order thus operates as an interim safeguard balancing artistic freedom with societal interest, pending detailed consideration of the legality of certification.