CBFC Viewed Film In Full, Certification Can't Be Faulted On Basis Of Teaser Alone: High Court On Row Over 'Kerala Story 2'

The Kerala High Court on Friday (27 February), while paving way for release of the film 'Kerala Story 2 - Goes Beyond', observed that the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) grants certifications after viewing a film in full, and the same cannot be faulted on the basis of few teaser clips. 

A Division Bench comprising Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice P.V. Balakrishnan made the remarks while delivering the order in appeals filed against a single judge's interim order staying release of the movie.

The Single Judge had stayed the release for 15 days in writ petitions challenging film's certification after examining the teaser and screenshots of the movie. It had observed that there is prima facie potential to distort public perception and disturb communal harmony. 

The Division Bench however set aside the order and emphasised that it was admitted fact that the CBFC had viewed the movie in its entirety before issuing certification and the petitioners had not watched the full film. 

The Bench held that once the statutory authority has examined the film in full and granted certification under the Cinematograph Act, 1952, there arises a prima facie presumption that the Board has applied its mind in accordance with Section 5B and the relevant guidelines. 

"In such circumstances, merely on the basis of a few clippings and without viewing the movie, the finding of the learned Single Judge that the guidelines for certification have not been borne in mind by the CBFC while granting certification, cannot be countenanced," the Court added. 

The Division Bench relied on the Supreme Court's ruling in Viacom 18 Media Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India [(2018) 1 SCC 761], where the apex court held that once the certification is granted by the CBFC, there is prima facie a presumption that the authority concerned has taken into account all the guidelines including public order.

Reliance was placed on Atul Mishra v. Union of India and others [W.P.(C)No.181 of 2026 dated 19.02.2026] which reiterated that apprehensions of law and order issues cannot justify halting the screening of a film cleared by the expert body.

The court further noted that the producer had carried out insertions, excisions, and modifications as directed by the CBFC and hence the Board had duly applied its mind before granting certification.

Case Nos: WA No. 547/2026 and WA 548/2026

Case Titles: Vipul Amrutlal Shah v. Freddy V. Francis and Ors. and connected case

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 123

Counsel for the appellants: Elvin Peter (Sr.), Neeraj Kishan Kaul (Sr.), A.C. Venugopal, Gautham Mohan.

Counsel for the respondents: Maitreyi Sachidananda Hegde, Rizla K.M., and Deepika K. Sasi & Sreerag Shylan, Ferha Azeez, and Devananda S.