Another PIL Moved In Kerala High Court Seeking Removal Of 'Kerala' From Film Title 'Kerala Story 2'

A public interest litigation has been moved before the Kerala High Court 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”.

The plea is preferred by two persons, one of whom is a retired social science teacher. The other is a Muslim woman and an advocate practicing before the High Court of Kerala. The plea outlines that the petitioner's locus is similar to that of the petitioners in the other two pleas preferred before the High Court challenging certification to the movie.

Last week, 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 present PIL outlines these aspects while stressing particularly on the fact that urgent listing of the appeals was obtained at 7:30 p.m., just a couple of hours after the Single Judge granted the interim stay on release.

"However in absolute haste and most unprecedented manner, the Respondent No.4 [producer] mentioned the matter before the Division Bench of this Court even before the learned Single Judge's detailed interim order in W.P.(C) No. 6854 of 2026 was formally uploaded or made widely available, and secured an urgent listing on the very same day, with the writ appeal being taken up at around 7.30 p.m., leaving little realistic opportunity for a considered appreciation of the reasoning and ratio decidendi in an order that had most eloquently and meticulously emphasised the cumulative impact of the teaser and trailer, the risk to communal harmony, and the statutory duties of Respondent No.3 [CBFC] under Section 5B and the CBFC Guidelines," states the plea.

The PIL outlines many of the arguments taken by the petitioners in the earlier pleas challenging the movie, and highlights that though the movie portrays protagonists from three States, the word 'Kerala' in the title taken along with the moviemaker's claim that the stories are inspired by true events, would create enmity against the Muslim community in the State, which is portrayed as the epicentre for forced religious conversions.

In the plea, it is also stated that the movie makers had introduced certain victims of forced conversions in an event and none of them were from Kerala. The petitioners here brings up the fact that when the litigation against the first movie reached the Apex Court, it was categorically observed that the figures of forced conversions of women and recruitment to ISIS was not real but only an embellished figure.

They have also referred to the Supreme Court's observations in Atul Mishra v. Union of India, relating to the title of the Netflix movie 'Ghooskar Pandat', wherein it was remarked that movie titles cannot be used to denigrate a particular community.

"Across the film, having casting characters 150+ cine actors portrayed as professing the Islamic faith, virtually every single character is depicted through an Islamophobic lens as radicalised, conspiratorial, or extremist without a single ordinary, peace‐living Muslim figure being shown to counterbalance this monolithic stereotype. The cumulative effect is to present Muslims as a uniformly malevolent collective and Kerala as the ideological and logistical hub from which a supposed project to impose “Sharia law across all of India” emanates, as rightly apprehended and observed by the learned single judge, thereby aligning the State's name and its religious minorities with anti‐national designs in the popular imagination. This pattern of representation, taken together with the teaser and trailer, not only entrenches the defamatory narrative of Kerala as “terror nursery” but also squarely meets the tests of promoting communal attitudes and endangering public order under the CBFC Guidelines and Article 19(2)."

The petitioners thus 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.

The petition is moved by Advocate Chelson Chembarathy.

Case No: WP(PIL) 49/2026

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