Controversy

In a plea filed by the advocate Kaleeswaram Raj against the release of the movie The Kerala Story, he contended that the movie constitutes hate speech against the Muslim community and the State of Kerala and Such promotion of hate speech does not constitute freedom of speech and expression under Art. 19 of the Constitution. A group of Keralan ladies who join the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) is the subject of the Hindi movie The Kerala Story. The film is based on actual events that took place in the Indian state of Kerala, where it is said that Christian and Hindu girls were trafficked for missions to Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan and that Muslim organisations purposefully trapped them in “Love Jihad” and converted them. Since the teaser’s release on 03.11.2022, the film has generated a number of controversy. The teaser itself contains the statistic that 32,000 women are recruited for terror missions, radicalized, and converted. Additionally, it was argued that the film offends both the secular fabric of the state and the religious sensibilities of the Muslim community.

Argument Advanced 

According to the petitioner, the movie’s preview featured hate speech and was offensive to the State of Kerala. The State and its citizens are being insulted. He further claims that the censor board only awarded the certificate based on a partial assessment of the film. Both the movie’s and the trailer’s content are utterly toxic. He is asking for prayers for a film that India banned because it incites hatred towards Muslims in particular and hurts their religious feelings.

The defendant claims that the teaser was initially broadcast on social media and that a certificate was also given by the Censor Board. Additionally, he cited the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Padmaavat case.

Conclusion of Kerala HC

Justices N Nagaresh and Mohammed Nias CP, sitting on a bench in the Kerala High Court, claimed that petitions opposing the film The Kerala Story will give them unneeded attention. They asked the Central Government for a response to their request for a delay of the film’s release. He also questioned how a court could prohibit and interfere with works of art.