‘Content with tendency to disturb...’: Kerala High Court stays release of The Kerala Story 2

Kochi: The Kerala High Court has observed that freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution does not provide absolute protection to content that has the potential to disturb social harmony, law and order or public peace. The remark was made during hearings related to the certification challenge against The Kerala Story 2: Goes Beyond.

The case was heard at the Kerala High Court before Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas, who examined whether the Central Board of Film Certification had exercised statutory authority properly while granting a U/A 16+ certification.

The bench allowed petitioners to submit additional documents but dismissed one petition due to insufficient establishment of locus standi. The court noted that although certification authorities have regulatory powers, the teaser and promotional content of the film appeared capable of influencing public perception and could raise concerns under public order and morality considerations.

Judicial scrutiny also focused on why the film was granted a U/A 16+ certificate instead of a stricter classification, given public concerns about the narrative and potential social impact.

The court observed that apprehensions about portraying a state in a way that could suggest social discord deserved consideration, particularly since the promotional material used the state’s name in the title.

Producers argued that the film contains stories from three states and that the subtitle “Goes Beyond” reflects a broader narrative rather than limiting the story to Kerala.

Legal counsel for the producers maintained that objections regarding state representation should ideally be addressed through public interest litigation rather than individual writ petitions.

The court referred to earlier judicial guidance in a similar Malayalam film case where minor edits were directed, and sought clarification on whether comparable scrutiny had been applied to this film.

Interim stay on release

The High Court granted an interim stay on the film’s release, stating that the restriction was necessary considering the circumstances of the case.

Producer’s counsel argued that stay orders should not be issued when parties are directed to approach statutory authorities. However, the bench held that public apprehension regarding the film’s narrative and title warranted judicial examination.

Public concerns over narrative portrayal

The court also examined whether promotional material and use of the state’s name in the title could create misleading impressions.

The film was reportedly cleared for exhibition with around 16 cuts, including modification of certain dialogues, reduction of selected scenes, and inclusion of an extended disclaimer stating that the movie is based on true events.

The legal dispute remains pending, and the High Court is expected to review additional submissions before delivering its final ruling on the certification challenge.