After Catholic Congress, Union Govt & CBFC Move Kerala High Court In Appeal Challenging 'Haal' Movie

The Union Government on Thursday (December 4) moved an appeal before the Kerala High Court challenging the Single Bench's decision quashing the A-certification and cuts to the movie 'Haal' starring Shane Nigam.

The appellants include the Union Government, along with the Regional Officer, the Chairman and Revising Committee of the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC).

This is the second appeal preferred against the judgment, the earlier being filed by the Catholic Congress.

Among the grounds pleaded by the Centre, one was that the Single Judge ought not to have entertained the filmmaker's plea as a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution in view of the appeal provision under the Cinematograph Act.

"It is submitted that the film in its entirety from the point of view of its overall impact necessitates censorship...It is submitted that the plot and the portrayal of interfaith relationship in the film requires mature audiences. Therefore, A certification granted by the appellants was completely justified," further states the Union's appeal.

Today, both the appeals were considered together by the Bench of Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice P.V. Balakrishnan.

The Union raised the issue of maintainability before the Bench and argued that the writ petition ought not to have been entertained by the Single Judge. Hearing the same, the Court orally said:

"There must be some provision in the Rules of the High Court. There is no nomenclature, how the appeal would be registered? Whether it will be known as miscellaneous appeal? But since there is no provision or Rules have not been framed, so only remedy is 226. In this order, we are going to direct the Registry, Registrar General to take steps to frame the Rules and even set the nomenclature so that in future, appeal would lie to the High Court from the order of the Central Board of Film Certificate."

However, detailed hearing in the appeals was deferred since the counsel representing the filmmakers sought for an adjournment.

While considering the Christian outfit's appeal last week, the Division Bench had said that it would watch the movie before passing any orders. It had also made it clear that costs would be imposed if it finds that there were no objectionable content in the film as alleged. 

"So we have seen the movie yesterday. So I enjoyed. I understood 50% at least. Because of the subtitles," Justice Dharmadhikari orally remarked.

The case will be considered again on December 8 (Monday).

The Union's appeal is moved by Advocate G. Sreekumar (Chellur). Catholic Congress 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 2926/ 2025 and connected case

Case Title: Union of India and Ors. v. Juby Thomas and Ors. and connected case.