Kerala High Court Reserves Verdict In Plea Challenging 'A' Certification, Cuts To Shane-Nigam Starrer Malayalam Movie 'Haal'

The Kerala High Court on Friday (November 7) reserved its verdict on a plea preferred by the producer and the director of the Malayalam film 'Haal' that had challenged the 'A' certification granted by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) as well as the excision suggested by the Board.After a detailed hearing yesterday, Justice V.G. Arun orally said that the judgment in the case would be pronounced next week, on Friday (November 14).The Court heard the arguments of Senior Advocate Joseph Kodianthara on behalf of the petitioners, Additional Solicitor General AR.L. Sundaresan representing the Board, Advocate Shinu J. Pillai for the additional respondent Catholic Congress and Senior Advocate P. Sreekumar representing additional 6th respondent, an office bearer of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS).The ASG argued that though there is right to freedom of speech and expression, the same is subject to restrictions. He also addressed each of the excisions suggested by the Board, one of which was to blur the name of the institution, Holy Angels College of Nursing.Justice Arun then orally asked the ASG: “Is there any restriction in showing the name of a religious institution?”The ASG replied that if the same is going to hurt or show that person in poor light, then there is. He argued that the boy is seen entering into a women's hostel at midnight.At this point, the Court clarifies, “But I've seen the film… from what I've seen, what I could gather is, the girl comes out of the hostel, gets on to his motorcycle and goes. She comes back sometime late in the night…That is the scene. That is what I have in my mind. Can't recollect the whole thing.”The ASG pointed out that when existing hostels are shown, the people watching the film may think that these hostels are not safe places.Next, the ASG referred to the excision suggested since the Christian heroine was wearing a Muslim attire in a dance sequence.At this point, the Court interjects: “Mr. Kodianthara was arguing the other day, if we accept the first objection regarding the attire, then even in fancy dresses there may be a restriction because they come in different dresses, irrespective of religion...Can we go to that extent?”The ASG then replied saying that when the scene is taken in the whole theme and context of the film, it is problematic.At this juncture, Justice Arun referred to the earlier argument of the Senior Counsel representing the petitioners, “The senior counsel also said that the movie has to be watched in its entirety and that it, in fact, promotes the secularism and fraternity, which is the fundamental values of our Constitution and that it's not the other way around.”The ASG then referred to the CBFC's counter affidavit, which stated that the Revising Committee including two subject experts had observed that the film is “Misrepresenting interfaith relationships – commonly referred to as “Love Jihad” – and portraying legitimate warnings from Hindu and Christian leaders as unfounded or intolerant.”He then concluded that the film was a one-sided propaganda, intended to influence the audience.Senior counsel representing the additional 6th respondent also raised arguments to the effect that A certification along with excisions are permitted under the scheme of the Act.Another argument raised by the respondents' counsels was that a Single Judge of the High Court should substitute the decision of the statutory authorities under the Cinematograph Act, including the Board and the Revising Committee, only in exceptional circumstances.“In short, the High Court should not be sitting in judgment over the wisdom or expertise of…,” orally observed the Court, summarising the point urged.The counsel representing the additional 5th respondent Catholic Congress further argued that since films have potential to influence its audience, prior censorship is necessary. He also urged that the film is undermining the concept of 'Love Jihad' as something made up.Court then clarified: “Love Jihad is...that expression is used in the context of forced conversions, is it not? Or duping a girl into this and converting her?”The counsel continued arguing that it was a propaganda movie and prayed that the power under Article 226 of the Constitution may not be exercised to do away with the excisions recommended.After hearing all the parties, the Court orally told that the judgment in the case would be pronounced on Friday (November 14).BackgroundThe producer and director of Shane Nigam-starrer movie 'Haal' had moved the Kerala High Court challenging the Central Board of Film Certification's decision to grant the movie an A certification and suggestions for making certain cuts in the movie including scenes of consumption of beef biriyani, dance sequence where heroine is wearing a burqa, etc.Recently, the Court had permitted the Catholic Congress and an office bearer of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) to be impleaded in the plea. The Catholic Congress had stated that...

Kerala High Court Reserves Verdict In Plea Challenging 'A' Certification, Cuts To Shane-Nigam Starrer Malayalam Movie 'Haal'

K. Salma Jennath

“Is there any restriction in showing the name of a religious institution?" the court asked the authorities.

Tags