High Court Declines Fresh PIL Against 'Kerala Story 2'; Pulls Up Petitioner For Casting Aspersions On Coordinate Bench That Allowed Release

The Kerala High Court on Thursday (March 5) refused to entertain a public interest litigation seeking a direction to re-title the movie 'The Kerala Story 2: Goes Beyond', which was released last week, so as not to include the words “Kerala”/ “Keralam”. A detailed order is awaited.

The Division Bench of Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. orally remarked that similar issues are already pending before a coordinate Division Bench, which is considering appeals against the interim stay granted against the release of the movie.

Since the coordinate Division Bench had already passed an order allowing the release of the movie, the Court was of the opinion that if any order is passed in the present PIL, that would amount to dilution of the order already passed.

"One writ petition is pending, one appeal is pending. So at this stage, it is not proper for us to interfere in this public interest litigation. Because, the prayers, as you said, are substantial issues in the pending appeal as well as the writ petition. There, the writ petitioner can amend the writ petition and ask for appropriate directions. We don't want to open a third. There could be possibility of chance of a different views taken. So conflict of opinion could be there. So, it's better that the Bench hearing that matter should hear this also. So, you approach that bench. We'll tag this along with the matter that is pending, before the appellate Bench...Any order in this stage will have the effect of diluting the order that is already existing in an appeal. So, the comity of court and judicial discipline requires that if a Bench is dealing with a matter where this issue can be raised. So there is already two matters are there, we can tag it and fix it on any date, maybe Monday or Tuesday. Appeal and this petition may be tagged together," the Court orally remarked.

During the hearing, the Court also pulled up the petitioners for preferring the PIL instead of asking for a recall of the Division Bench's order or approaching the Supreme Court. It also criticised the petitioners for making an averment that the coordinate Division Bench took up the matter in an unprecedented manner.

Chief Justice Sen orally said, "You'll have to remove this. If you are aggrieved, you can go before the Supreme Court. Sitting in a Division Bench, I cannot decide on an observation by another coordinate Bench. Is this permissible in law?...See this was inconsequential for the purpose of deciding the matter. You casting an aspersion against another coordinate Bench. Yes, this is an aspersion...Do you know what exactly happened? Are you aware of it? Exactly what has happened? If you are not aware of it, how could use such loose statements like this? I can issue a contempt for this. Without knowing this, you are making reckless statements. You know the circumstances under which the matter was taken up?"

The counsel appearing for the Central Board of Film Certification submitted: "This is clear insinuation...In fact, it is all over the media."

"I have only stated that it was mentioned before the Division Bench in an unprecedented manner, which it was," the petitioners' counsel clarified. 

"Then withdraw this and file a fresh one without paragraph 14....Just remember one thing, you have to respect the institution. We will come, we will go. But the institution will remain. You may criticise a judgment. No problem with that. But you are casting an aspersion. And I am not too sure whether any SLP has been preferred against that order," the Bench told the counsel.

The counsel clarified that there is no SLP pending before the Apex Court. Hearing the submission, the Court asked, "Then you are taking up the cause of the persons who are really aggrieved? You are making such statements in paragraph 14." The counsel then unconditionally apologised for including the submissions in the PIL.

"This was not the manner in which the Bench was constituted, which is well known," submitted the counsel appearing for the producer.

"That also you do not know. Only I know. None of you knows about it. Don't think that any one of you knows about it. That was a regular roster Bench. That was the Bench having the regular roster. Did you inquire about it? No one enquired but you make posts as if it was something and you tarnish the image of the institution, not understanding that you are not tarnishing the image of a judge, but the image of an institution. You...the law, there is no problem. But don't attack the judge, don't attack the Bench. That I will not allow it. And if persons who have aggrieved, they have not gone to the Supreme Court. So a coordinate Bench will decide whether my other Division Bench has decided the matter correctly or wrongly. Is the law? A different Division Bench will decide the matter in one way or the other. Once it has attained some kind of finality attached to it? Some propriety, decency, decorum has to be maintained. You are an advocate, you are wearing a robe. You are an officer of the Court. And you are making these kind of loose comments in the petition," Chief Justice Sen orally remarked.

The petitioners' counsel replied, "I only beg to submit that an inadvertent mistake of an officer of this Court and not prejudice the cause of the petitioners in this matter. Kindly allow me to amend the pleadings. I sincerely apologise for this. Subsequent to the exhibition of the movie, there has been serious public disorder and the very exhibition of the movie is at the face of it."

"And then this issue can be decided by this Bench once appeal is pending before the other Bench and the other Bench has taken a view on this? Is it proper? Judicial discipline. I ask you as a lawyer. Tell us. Judicial discipline means you can go for recalling of this order. Ask for variation. The persons aggrieved, they have not come. They are not before us. They cannot come before us. They have to go to the Supreme Court if they are aggrieved by any order," the Court orally said.

The Court then directed that the public interest be withdrawn and gave liberty to file a fresh one.

Last month, in a matter of two days, the movie's release was stayed and subsequently, the stay was lifted, leading to its release on the scheduled date of release itself. A Single Judge had granted a stay against the release of the film, after noting that the admitted scenes in the teaser that forms part of the movie had the potential to disturb communal harmony.

This interim order was appealed against by the producer and heard in an urgent hearing before the Division Bench. The Division Bench had then lifted the stay against the movie, observing that the Censor Board had viewed that film in full and therefore, its certification cannot be said to be without application of mind.

The petitioners in the present plea prays for a direction commanding the Union Government and the CBFC to ensure that the movie is not hereafter exhibited, broadcast, streamed, advertised or otherwise made available to the public under a title containing the word “Kerala”/ “Keralam”, and to require the producer to re‐title the film in a manner that does not stigmatise or defame the State of Kerala or its people. The same is also sought as an interim prayer.

They have also prayed for a direction to the Central government and CBFC to screen the movie with a disclaimer that the movie is purely fictional and that there is no authentic data or official finding to support any allegation that Kerala is a hub of terrorism or that “Sharia law” is sought to be enforced across India and the narrative does not purport to represent the State of Kerala, its people, or any religious community as a whole.

As a general prayer, the petitioners have sought direction to Union Government and the CBFC to frame, publish and implement clear guidelines governing the titling and marketing of cinematograph films, so as to ensure that titles and taglines do not denigrate, stereotype or hold up to hatred or contempt any identifiable State, region, caste, religious or other community as laid down in precedents.

Case No: WP(PIL) 49/2026

Case Title: Chandramohan K.C. and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 125