Kerala HC Holds Late-Night Hearing on Stay of ‘The Kerala Story 2’, Verdict Reserved

In Vipul Amrutlal Shah v. Freddy V Francis & Ors., the Kerala High Court on Thursday held a late evening hearing on the appeal filed by the producers of “The Kerala Story 2 – Goes Beyond.” The appeal challenges a single-judge order staying the film’s release for 15 days.

A Division Bench of Justices SA Dharmadhikari and PV Balakrishnan assembled at 7.30 pm and heard arguments for nearly two hours before reserving its judgement. The film is scheduled for release on Friday, including in over 1,500 theatres in India and 355 theatres abroad.

Earlier in the day, Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas had stayed the release while directing the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) to reconsider objections raised against the film. The single-judge observed that there appeared to be a lack of proper application of mind by the CBFC while granting certification.

The Division Bench expressed concern over the manner in which the stay was granted. “Order passed by any bench outside jurisdiction will be automatically nullified,” the Bench remarked, questioning whether the matter was heard in accordance with roster allocation. Justice Dharmadhikari also noted, “Everything has been done in haste. Nobody had time to apply their mind.”

Senior Advocate Neeraj Kishan Kaul, appearing for the producers, argued that the single-judge had termed the CBFC’s decision “manifestly arbitrary” without explaining the basis for such a finding. He said the storyline is within the creator’s domain and added, “Are we so frail in this country with greatest harmony that we can say that portrayal of social evil in one religion or a portion of a religion, will scandalise the faith and tenets of religion?”

Kaul further contended that the film does not denigrate Kerala. According to him, the sequel expands beyond the State and includes characters from other regions, which is reflected in the subtitle “Goes Beyond.” He also warned that delaying release could cause severe financial losses and increase the risk of piracy.

Senior Counsel Elvin Peter submitted that the CBFC had offered to grant a video hearing to the objectors on the same day, yet the stay was still imposed. He maintained that the certification had not been set aside and that the producers retained the right to release the film.

Opposing the appeal, Advocate Maitreyi Hegde argued that the petition was not a public interest litigation but was based on personal grievance. She said that associating Kerala with terrorism in the film’s narrative harms the reputation of Malayalis. She emphasised that the stay is temporary and that the authorities could reconsider the objections within the stipulated period.

Another petitioner questioned the claim that the film is based on true events and argued that the title itself could affect the image of the State.

After hearing both sides, the Division Bench reserved its judgement. The fate of the film’s scheduled release now depends on the High Court’s decision.