'You Can't Vilify A Community' : Supreme Court Judges Agree To Watch 'The Kerala Story' Movie After Objections Raised To Portrayal Of Muslims

While hearing the batch of petitions concerning the screening of the controversial film 'The Kerala Story', the Supreme Court orally remarked today that as much as the Apex Court was there to protect free speech, vilifying a community could not be permitted. The remark was made when the court was discussing the script of the film which was alleged to be Islamophobic and derogatory to the Muslim community.

The bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice PS Narasimha and Justice JB Pardiwala was considering a petition filed by the producer of the film against the ban in West Bengal and the alleged shadow ban in Tamil Nadu and also other petitions seeking stay of the movie's exhibition.

CJI DY Chandrachud said during the hearing :

"As much as we protect free speech, you cannot vilify a community."

The counsels appearing for those in favour of banning the film highlighted dialogues and scenes from the movie which, they said, were offensive to the Muslim community. Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind, said that the dialogues in the film were much worse than the teaser(which claimed that 32,000 women from Kerala were recruited to ISIS through deceitful conversion) and cited certain offensive remarks in the movie. He said–

"This is the kind of stuff you're saying - until you spit on him, you cannot go to Allah. We are all for freedom of speech but this cannot be permitted."

To this, Justice Pardiwala asked–

"Is this a part of the film?"

Sibal replied in an affirmative. Senior Advocate Huzefa Ahmadi also cited certain portions of the film which he stated were offensive. He argued that adding a disclaimer was not effective as it was just like a statutory warning on alcohol and cigarettes. Reading out excerpts from the film, he highlighted that the story revolved around a woman Shalini, narrating how thousands were forced to join militancy in Syria. He said–

"The movie starts with "fight the non believers" said by a Muslim man...Another scene shows Muslim clerics talking about how they can lure Hindu women and take them to Syria, and saying if necessary, they can impregnate them...They also say nationalism is a sin and that being a Muslim is the only identity...Another scene shows remarks against Shiva and Rama. I'm not reading it because I find it difficult to read. These are attributed to a Muslim. The consequence of this hate that is generated, that is to be borne into mind."

Ahmadi argued that if the bench watches the movie, no further arguments would be necessary. He said–

"If the film runs its entire course, the damage will be done...Please see the film over the weekend and then decide...Decision also has to be taken for the screening of the film on OTT platforms."

"We'll first see the film so we can contextualise and then decide", CJI said.

Ahmadi also highlighted that the damage done due to the screening of a propaganda film would not just be in terms of physical violence but also in terms of the consequences of the hate generated against a particular community. He said–

"The prejudice created by a propaganda film- that is also to be seen. Don't see it just from the perspective of violence. A person from that community will face discrimination also when he goes to rent a house. There may be discrimination in terms of employment also. A private person who sees this film and may develop a certain point of view, will not employ a person from that community...The ramifications are large."

Upon the submissions made by the counsels, the bench decided to watch the film and then lay guidelines in terms of what was permissible and what was not. CJI DY Chandrachud said–

"We will define a doctrine- what is permitted and what is not. We'll look at the film and decide it."

Ahmadi also made reference to the order passed by the Supreme Court staying the telecast of 'UPSC jihad' show by Sudarshan News TV on the ground that it was vilifying Muslim community.

During the proceedings, Senior Advocate AM Singhvi, appearing for the State of West Bengal argued that there was no point of removing the teaser as the movie itself stated that 32000 women were missing and had been converted to Islam and sent to Syria. Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing for West Bengal Police, argued on similar grounds and said–

"We can cut this short if Mr Salve's client agrees to put a statement that this is fiction...Here there is an interest of minority communities which the state has to protect. If you're making propaganda films and claiming that it is not fiction and it's fact and saying that you've verified it, then the responsibility is very different than a pure fiction movie."

Noting theses submissions, CJI DY Chandrachud asked Senior Advocate Harish Salve, who was appearing for the film producers–

"Mr Salve, this 32000 figure is a distortion of facts. Address this please."

Ultimately, Salve agreed to add a disclaimer on the movie stating–

1. There is no authentic data to back up the suggestion that the figure of converted people is 32000 or any other figure;

2. The film represents a fictionalised version of subject matter.

In its order, the Supreme Court stayed the ban imposed by the State of West Bengal on the screening of the film and also recorded the statement made by Additional Advocate General Amit Anand Tiwari on behalf of the State of Tamil Nadu that there is no direct or indirect ban of the movie in the State. The Court further directed the State of Tamil Nadu to provide security to theatres & movie goers in the state.