'This Sort Of Litigation Should Be Condemned': Kerala Story 2 Producer Tells High Court After Another Plea Moved Against Film

Another plea has been moved before the Kerala High Court challenging the certification of the film The Kerala Story 2: Goes Beyond and seeking removal of 'Kerala' from the movie title.The plea also alleges that the producer of the film committed offences punishable under Sections 196 [Promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony], 197 [Imputations, assertions prejudicial to national integration] and 299 [Deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs] of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and that the contents of the film are prejudicial to public harmony.“Specifically, the systematic vilification of the religious community through dehumanized portrayals and the branding of the State of Kerala as the "epicentre of radicalisation" and "ground zero" for a pan-India radical minority extremist terrorist project squarely attract the mischief of Section 196 , 197 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) . These acts promote enmity between different groups on grounds of religion and residence and are highly prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony. Furthermore, the inclusion of scenes depicting the forced consumption of beef and the serial abuse of women within households of identifiable religious minority group indicates a deliberate and malicious intent to outrage religious feelings, thereby attracting Section 299 of the BNS,” states the plea.The present plea was filed by a Keralite employed in Bangalore claiming that his identity was detrimentally affected by the portrayal of his State as a 'terror hub' of a particular religious group. As per the plea, the petitioner watched the film after being subject to certain negative interaction with some persons whoThe petitioner has cited the decision in Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India wherein the Apex Court had issued a mandatory direction to all States and Union Territories to register suo motu FIRs against hate speech. “In the present case, the narrative architecture of the impugned film, which constructs a monolithic, dehumanized stereotype of a community and a region to incite communal polarization, falls squarely within the category of hate speech as envisaged by the Apex Court,” states the petitioner.The petitioner is praying for a declaration that the exhibition and promotion of the film violates Articles 19(2) and 21of the Constitution and the Cinematograph Act. He is also seeking to quash the certification granted to the film or for a direction to to re-title the film so that 'Kerala'/'Keralam' is not used.As a general prayer, it is sought that a direction be passed commanding the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) to ensure that the title containing the words 'Kerala' or 'Keralam' cannot be granted to any applicant without fulfilling the mandates under the guidelines and rules framed under the Cinematograph Act.When the matter came up today for admission before Justice P.M. Manoj, the petitioner's counsel submitted that the certification of the film is in violation of Rules 12, 13 and 17 of the Guidelines of the CBFC and also in derogation of Sections 191, 197 and 299 of the BNS.The counsel appearing for producer Vipul Amrutlal Shah submitted that the appeals against the interim order in the other writ petitions were listed today before the Division Bench and the same were adjourned post vacation. He further told the Court that the public interest litigation filed against the film was also withdrawn.“This seems to be a third pick at a cherry. This sort of attitude towards a litigation is something which should be condemned by this Court is my respectful submission,” submitted the producer's counsel.After noting that the connected appeals were considered today by the Division Bench and posted after summer holidays, the Court posted the present plea after vacation.The petition is moved by Advocate Chelson Chembarathy.Case No: WP(C) 11010/2026Case Title: Yohan George v. Union of India

'This Sort Of Litigation Should Be Condemned': Kerala Story 2 Producer Tells High Court After Another Plea Moved Against Film

K. Salma Jennath

Tags