Kerala High Court Clears Path for Film Haal, Rejects CBFC and Church Body’s Appeals

The Kerala High Court has upheld a single judge’s decision that removed most of the cuts suggested by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) for the Malayalam film Haal. A Division Bench of Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice PV Balakrishnan dismissed appeals filed by the CBFC as well as a Christian organisation, the Catholic Congress of the Thamarassery Diocese.

Earlier, the CBFC had ordered six cuts in the film. However, on November 14, a single judge set aside four of those cuts and asked the CBFC to reconsider granting the censor certificate. The remaining two cuts were not examined in detail because the filmmakers themselves agreed to make those changes.

Challenging this decision, both the CBFC and the Catholic Congress approached the Division Bench. The Catholic Congress claimed that the film portrayed the Thamarassery Bishop and Bishop House without permission and argued that some scenes could affect communal harmony. It also stated that allowing only two cuts was unfair and favoured one group.

Before deciding the appeals, the Division Bench watched the film on December 3 in the presence of lawyers from all sides, as the film had not yet received its final certificate. After viewing the film, the Court found no reason to interfere with the single judge’s order.

The Bench questioned the Catholic Congress on how it could seek relief through an appeal when it had not filed the original writ petition. The organisation had only sought to be added as a party earlier. The Court made it clear that relief in such cases can only be granted to the petitioner and not to a respondent who has not independently challenged the issue.

The Court further stated that if the Catholic Congress wanted specific relief, it should have filed a separate petition instead of appealing against a decision in a case where it was only a respondent.

The CBFC and the Union government argued that the filmmakers should have followed the appeal mechanism provided under the Cinematograph Act rather than directly approaching the High Court. The CBFC also defended all six cuts, stating that they were justified under Article 19(2) of the Constitution, which allows reasonable restrictions on free speech.

However, the Division Bench rejected these arguments and confirmed the single judge’s ruling. As a result, the appeals were dismissed, and the CBFC’s objections remain largely quashed.