Earlier, although the Court had indicated its willingness to view the film before adjudicating the matter, the producer declined the suggestion. His counsel submitted that the case could be argued on its legal merits without a prior screening.
During the proceedings, the High Court orally observed, “Kerala lives in total harmony. However, the film appears to suggest that such incidents are occurring across the State. This conveys an incorrect impression and may incite passions.”
The Court thereafter heard extensive submissions from counsel for the petitioners, the senior counsel representing the producer, and the counsel for the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC). Upon conclusion of arguments, the matter was reserved for judgment.
The petitioners contended that the film had been granted certification in violation of the statutory requirements under the Cinematograph Act. They argued that the title of the film, read together with its depiction of themes such as forced conversions and terrorism, would stigmatise the entire State of Kerala. According to them, the content was likely to inflame passions and potentially lead to communal discord.
One of the petitioners further submitted that following the release of the prequel, The Kerala Story, which itself had been embroiled in multiple litigations, incidents of unrest and hostility towards Kerala and its residents were reported both within India and abroad.
It was also pointed out that, during promotional activities, the filmmakers had stated that the film was not specifically about Kerala but portrayed a pan-Indian narrative. Additionally, the alleged victims of terrorism depicted in the film were not from Kerala. On this basis, the petitioners objected to the use of the word “Kerala” in the film’s title, asserting that it was misleading and unwarranted.
The senior counsel for the producer questioned the maintainability of the petitions, arguing that they were in the nature of public interest litigations. He submitted that the petitioners had not demonstrated any individual grievance and were instead seeking to protect the collective dignity of the State.
In response, the petitioners defended their locus standi, contending that the existence of other similarly placed persons with comparable grievances did not render their own concerns non-justiciable. One petitioner also noted that his locus had not been specifically challenged in all the cases, as written objections were filed only in one matter.
In one of the petitions, a transcript of the teaser uploaded on YouTube was placed on record. The Court orally observed that the transcript contained objectionable material. However, counsel for the CBFC clarified that neither the teaser nor the trailer had been certified by the Board, and therefore it bore no responsibility for any content uploaded on social media platforms.
It was further submitted that the allegedly objectionable content in the teaser did not form part of the final film. The Court took note that the petitions did not seek any specific relief against the teaser or trailer. It also remarked that alternative remedies might be available in respect of objectionable material disseminated on social media.
The petitioners countered that the filmmakers were indirectly achieving what they could not do directly, and that such a course ought not to be permitted. The Court also observed that, in the absence of the producer’s willingness to screen the film, it was not possible to conclusively ascertain the actual content of the movie.