'Kerala Lives In Total Harmony, Movie Has Wrong Portrayal' : Kerala High Court On 'The Kerala Story 2' Film

The Kerala High Court has sought the Centre's stand today itself on whether a screening of the film 'Kerala Story 2: Goes Beyond' can be arranged before it decides the pleas challenging its Censor certificate for allegedly depicting the State in a bad light.

On perusing the transcript of certain dialogues from the film, Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas orally remarked that while people in the State live in total harmony, the film has portrayed them wrongly.

"Kerala lives in total harmony. But you have portrayed that this is happening all over Kerala. There is a wrong indication and can also incite passion. That is where the censor board comes into play. Have you considered that?" the Judge said.

The judge added that apprehension of people of Kerala "cannot be ignored" since the makers have used the name of Kerala in the film title.

"...Normally, I do not interfere with any movie. Artistic freedom. But you are saying that it is inspired by true events and name Kerala is given, which can create some communal tension. I will watch the movie tomorrow. You can arrange a screening of the movie tomorrow," the Judge said.

Thus, the Court has asked the Centre to come up with instructions in the post-lunch session.

"Get instructions as to whether the movie can be screened. Can't render that petition as infructuous. How long would the central govt to decide on the representation? Get instructions by 1:45...All these presumptions can rebutted if the movie depicts something that can incite communal violence," the judge said.

Update: When the matter was taken up at 2 p.m., the senior counsel appearing for the producer told that the matter can be argued on merits and a counter can also be filed. The Court then posted the matter to tomorrow.

One of the Petitioners has argued that while the movie title names Kerala, the film apparently features a pan India story.

"The movie makers held a meeting in Delhi where the victims of terror acts were none of them were from Kerala. In fact, when this question was posed to the movie makers, they said that the movie is not about Kerala and it is a pan India movie. Therefore, using the name of 'Kerala' in the movie title would be misleading," the counsel argued today.

Petitioner also relied on Atul Mishra v. Union Of India relating to Netflix's proposed film titled 'Ghooskhor Pandit', where the Supreme Court recently observed that films can't denigrate a section of society by way of title.

"The recent case of the movie Ghooskhor Pandit filed as a PIL before SC wherein it was observed that a movie title cannot offend an entire section of the community, the moviemakers were asked to change the title and it was changed," the counsel submitted.

The filmmakers on the other hand argued that Certification of the film raises a presumption in their favour.

However, the Court noted that there are certain conditions that central government itself has issued.

"...The presumption can be rebutted by the movie itself. Once the movie is released, it is not just a creation. You are saying it is inspired by true events. It has a great bearing...In bold letters, you are saying inspired by true event. And in very microscopic letters you would have said the characters are all fictional..." it orally observed.

Petitioner further argued that the teaser of the film was being exhibited without obtaining a censor certificate.

The filmmakers on the other hand argued that the content in teaser is not a part of the movie.

At this juncture, the Court orally asked the makers, "Can you arrange for a movie watching for tomorrow? If you are saying that the content in the teaser is not in the movie, then there might be a point."

"I don't think last movie's teaser was as serious...Personally, I don't want to restrict any artist's prerogatives but the law that has been laid down indicates certain restrictions," it added.

The film producer then sought time to take instructions to inform the Court of the possible day for viewing the movie. The matter will now be taken up at 2pm.

Another Petitioner contended that ever since the release of the first 'Kerala Story', there is a prejudice against Malayalee and people from Kerala.

"Keralites all over the world can have a bearing. That's why the central govt itself issued notification which says visuals or words contemptuous of racial, religious, or other groups cannot be there," the Court remarked.

Last week, the Court had issued notice to the makers of the film. Another writ was subsequently moved before the Court challenging the film [Freddy V. Francis v. Union of India and Ors.] and the Deputy Solicitor General of India (DSGI) had taken notice on behalf of the CBFC.

The present plea has been raised stating that the certification of the film by the CBFC was not in accordance with the Cinematograph Act, 1952.

It is stated that though the film's trailer and teaser depicts narratives from women of different States, the title of the film containing the name of one State would have the impact of associating the alleged acts of terrorism to that State alone. This, according to the petitioner, would stigmatise one region and, potentially cause communal and regional disharmony.

The prequel to the film, i.e., The Kerala Story was also subjected to multiple litigation before the High Court and the Supreme Court.

The first petition is moved by Advocates Maitreyi Sachidananda Hegde, Rizla K.M., Deepika K. Sasi.

The second petition is moved by Advocate Sreerag Shylan.

Case Nos: WP(C) 6574/ 2026 and WP(C) 6854/2026

Case Titles: Sreedev Namboodiri v. Union of India and Ors. and Freddy V. Francis v. Union of India and Ors.