Kerala High Court Questions Catholic Congress' Locus To Appeal Against Haal Movie, Verdict Reserved
The Kerala High Court on Thursday (November 27) reserved its verdict in an appeal preferred by the Catholic Congress against a Single Judge's direction to CBFC to reconsider A-certification granted to 'Haal' film, without deleting some scenes depicting the Bishop.The Christian outfit argues that the film depicts the Bishop of Thamarassery as a supporter of inter-faith marriages, when his...
The Kerala High Court on Thursday (November 27) reserved its verdict in an appeal preferred by the Catholic Congress against a Single Judge's direction to CBFC to reconsider A-certification granted to 'Haal' film, without deleting some scenes depicting the Bishop.
The Christian outfit argues that the film depicts the Bishop of Thamarassery as a supporter of inter-faith marriages, when his known public stance is otherwise. It also objected to the filming of the Bishop's house from outside. The Catholic Congress prayed that the quashing of excisions 2 to 4 by the Single Judge be set aside.
As per Excision 2, the CBFC had asked the filmmakers to cut a police interrogation scene with school boys, alleging there is stereotyping of certain religious communities.
Excision 3 specifically refers to scenes alleged to hurt Christian religious sentiments, blurring of a Christian institution and requiring consent for filming the Tharamarassery Bishop house. Excision 4, on the other hand, suggests modifying scenes where the police and state authorities are shown in a bad light, depicting discrimination against certain religious groups.
The Division Bench of Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice P.V. Balakrishnan however orally questioned the writ appeal, noting that there was no legal injury caused to Catholic Congress, which was a respondent in the writ petition.
"Basic thing that anyone knows. As a respondent, can you get any relief?...Any relief you want, you have file a writ, separate," Justice Dharmadhikari said orally.
The Court also hinted its unwillingness to entertain the plea and orally remarked:
"How can you compel them to do it (excisions)? It's their movie. We can't direct them to delete any of this...You are not the petitioner. You can't get any reliefs. You have to file another writ petition. We will think over this...How one can jump and come? You are arguing on merits. We are thinking on a different line...Locus. First question is of locus. Decided locus goes in the dustbin? No legal remedy, legal injury, then it has to entertained? There is a law."
Defending the writ appeal, Advocate Shinu J. Pillai representing the Catholic Congress argued that since the appeal against the Film Board's decision was considered by the Single Judge as a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the appeal under Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act was maintainable.
The counsel for the Catholic Congress pressed for carrying out these excisions and told the Court that premises of the Thamassery Bishop house was included in the film without obtaining any consent from the competent ecclesiastical authority.
"Where is the question of consent? He must be aware when the shooting took place...outside? Not even entering the premises?," Justice Dharmadhikari remarked.
The Court was also told that the movie portrayed the Bishop contrary to his known stance against inter-faith marriage. However, Senior Counsel Kodianthara pointed out that the Bishop is shown in the "best light" and only encouraging people to follow their own faiths.
Hearing this, Justice Dharmadhikari refused to comment on the movie without watching the same: "Nothing against any religion? What happened? Marriage took place?...In the movie, marriage took place...Without seeing the movie, we can't make any comments."
At this juncture, Advocate Shinu encouraged the Court to watch the movie with subtitles before deciding the case.
"It's in Malayalam. Important lines are always missing (from subtitles). That changes the entire story," Justice Dharmadhikari said.
When the Catholic Congress pressed for a stay of the process of granting certification, the Court refused and orally told that it would consider the appeal and pass orders:
"Certificate granted? There is no need to stay because certificate is not yet granted. We will pass judgment in 2-3 days. Reserved. We'll see. If it is maintainable, we will pass order on merits. We have heard both of you."
Background
In the movie, several scenes, in addition to the suggested cuts, were opposed by the Catholic Congress.
The Single Judge had quashed the Film Board's A-certification and cuts to the movie, while holding that the film was in tune with the foundational principles enunciated in the Constitution of India. It had then directed the Board to re-consider the certification to the movie.
The Single Bench had also recorded the filmmaker's undertaking that it would carry out Excisions 5 and 6 suggested by the Board, including the controversial beef biriyani scene and references to a 'cultural organisation'. Considering the undertaking, the Court had not considered the merits of these excisions.
With respect to the other oppositions, including the portrayal of the Bishop of Thamarassery blessing the union of the inter-faith couple, the Single Judge had remarked that these were well within the creative freedom of the filmmakers.
The Single Bench had also opined that the depiction of the Christian heroine wearing a Muslim attire in a dance sequence in the movie cannot be termed as indecent, immoral or capable of inciting violence.
Challenging the decision, the Catholic Congress, which had impleaded itself in the plea as additional 5th respondent, has preferred the present appeal.
In the appeal, Catholic Congress has stated that it had filed a complaint before the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) prior to impleading itself.
Among the several grounds pleaded, the Catholic Congress has submitted that the Single Judge ignored the references to 'Love Jihad' and the film-maker's attempt to justify the same.
“The learned single judge while rendering the impugned Judgment ignored the references regarding the term “love Jihadh” and conscious attempt of the movie makers to justify such acts of a terrorist as a misconceived understanding of interfaith love relationship. The movie after its first have giving much importance to the terror modus of “love jihadh” and forceful conversion to Islam,” states the appeal.
The appeal further states that the Single Judge failed to consider that the fundamental rights under Articles 25 and 26 were infringed by several scenes in the movie that questioned the clergy and practices followed in Christianity.
The appeal is moved by Advocates Mariya Rajan, Shinu J. Pillai, S. Suja, Ann Mariya John and Felix Samson Varghese. Senior counsel Joseph Kodianthara and Advocates John Vithayathil, E.S. Saneej are representing the filmmakers.
Case No: WA 2803/2025
Case Title: Catholic Congress v. Juby Thomas and Ors.