'Christian Girl Wearing Muslim Attire Not Immoral Or Capable Of Inciting Violence': Kerala High Court Allows Plea Against Cuts To 'Haal' Movie

The observation was made by Justice V.G. Arun while allowing a plea by the makers, challenging the A-certification granted by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) as well as the cuts suggested by it.

The CBFC had suggested six excisions to the movie, including deletion of the beef biriyani eating, police interrogation scenes and a dance sequence in which the heroine, a Christian girl, is wearing a burqa.

During the course of the proceedings, the Catholic Congress had also impleaded itself and objected to the movie, stating that the Bishop of Thamarassery was depicted was someone approving inter-faith marriage, against his known stance.

Addressing these, the Court, in its judgment, observed:

“A Christian girl wearing Muslim attire or an interrogation scene at the police station with school boys present, cannot be termed as indecent or immoral, or capable of inciting violence. The depiction of a character as a Bishop of the Christian community and the dialogues of that person falls well within the artistic freedom guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a).”

The other objections against the movie also included that the movie was a propaganda movie, made to downplay or misrepresent 'Love Jihad'. Regarding this, the Court's observation was as follows:

“It is beyond comprehension as to how the above theme can be termed as misrepresentation of inter-faith relationships, or portrayal of legitimate warnings from Hindu and Christian leaders, as unfounded and intolerant. The other observations of the experts are also unsustainable when pitted against the larger theme of the film. This reasoning is equally applicable to the excisions directed by the impugned order.”

The Court was of the opinion that the movie ought to have been viewed from the perspective of an ordinary person, which the Board had failed to do. It further remarked:

“In the case at hand it is clear that, instead of judging the film as would be done by an ordinary prudent person, the Board's focus was on whether the film will ruffle a few oversensitive feathers. Even accepting the contention of the learned ASGI that the Censor Board is involved in the act of balancing the freedom of the movie maker with the reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2), such balancing act cannot be carried out by overlooking the foundational principles of secularism and fraternity which are the bedrock of our great democracy.”

The Court clearly expressed its opinion that it found the movie to be in consonance with the foundational principles highlighted in the Constitution of India.

“While proceeding to decide the lis, this Court has to bear in mind that every societal issue, be they economic policy, social justice or governance, must be viewed through the prism of constitutional values and refracted through the foundational principles of justice, liberty, equality and fraternity along with the fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution of India. Upon viewing the film from the perspective of an ordinary person, this Court found the theme of the film to be in tune with the foundational principles enunciated in our Constitution,” opined the Court.

The Court also ventured to look into the scheme of the Cinematograph Act as well as the guidelines issued by the Central government that guides the certifying authority while considering the certification for a film. It opined that the Board cannot exercise its powers according to its whims and fancies.

It further observed:

“it is necessary to understand the scheme of the Act. The pertinent provisions are Section 3 providing for constitution of the Board of Film Certification, Section 4 providing for examination of the films, Section 5 dealing with advisory panels, Section 5A providing for certification of films as “U', “UA”, “A” or “S”. Section 5B(1) empowering the competent authority to refuse certification and sub-section (2) of Section 5B, providing for issuance of directions by the Central Government setting out the principles that should guide the competent authority are also of importance. The guidelines for certification of films is issued in exercise of such power. The provisions leave no room for doubt that the competent authority can certify the films differently and even refuse permission for release. But such power cannot be exercised according to the whims and fancies of the authority.”

Regarding the last two excisions, Excisions 5 and 6, which contained suggestions to delete the beef biriyani eating scene and the alleged demeaning portrayal of a cultural organisations, since the petitioners had agreed to remove the same, the Court did not look into the correctness of the same.

The Court, thus, allowed the petition and directed the petitioners to re-submit the film for certification. The CBFC was directed to examine the film as per the prescribed procedure and issue a fresh certification within 2 weeks of re-submission.

Case No: WP(C) No. 37251/2025

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 738

Counsel for the petitioners: Joseph Kodianthara (Sr.), E.S. Saneeh, John Vithayathil

Counsel for the respondents: AR.L. Sundaresan (ASG), Rajagopalan A. – CBFC, Mariya Rajan, S. Suja, Ann Mariya John, Felix Samson Varghese – Catholic Congress, P. Sreekumar (Sr.), S. Anil Kumar (Cherthala) - RSS office bearer