Kerala High Court Sets Aside Stay, Clears Release of Kerala Story 2
In Vipul Amrutlal Shah v. Freddy V Francis & Ors., the Kerala High Court has lifted the stay on the release of the film Kerala Story 2 – Goes Beyond. The Division Bench set aside the interim order passed earlier by a single judge.
The matter arose after Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas had restrained the film’s release for fifteen days. He directed the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) to examine complaints raised against the movie and consider revision petitions within two weeks.
The producers challenged this interim order before a Division Bench comprising Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice PV Balakrishnan. An urgent special sitting was convened late in the evening to hear the appeal, as the film was scheduled for international release the next day.
After hearing arguments for over two hours, the Bench reserved its decision and later pronounced its JUDGEMENT. The Court vacated the stay and allowed the release of the movie, emphasising the legal position regarding certified films.
The Division Bench noted that once the CBFC grants certification, there is a presumption that the statutory authority has considered all relevant guidelines, including public order concerns. The Court observed that the film had been viewed in its entirety by the Board before certification.
It held that concerns about possible law and order issues cannot justify pre-release restraint once certification is granted. If any disturbance arises after release, the responsibility lies with the State machinery to maintain public order.
The Bench also found fault with the single judge’s reliance on teasers and trailers instead of the full film. It stated that conclusions about non-compliance with certification guidelines cannot be drawn merely from selected clippings.
The petitions against the film had alleged that the movie misrepresented Kerala and could incite communal disharmony. One petitioner objected to the teaser’s closing line “ab sahenge nahin… ladenge,” arguing that it could provoke confrontation.
Another petitioner challenged the use of the term “Kerala” in the title, claiming it falsely associated the State with terrorism and forced religious conversion. The petition described the film as “marketing of hate” and questioned its claim of being based on true events.
Senior Advocates appearing for the producers argued that the petitioners lacked locus standi and that pre-release restraint amounts to the most extreme form of censorship. They relied on Supreme Court precedents which recognise the strong presumption attached to CBFC certification.
Referring to earlier rulings, the Division Bench reiterated that courts must exercise caution before interfering with the release of a certified film. On this basis, it concluded that the interim stay could not be sustained.
With the stay lifted, the film is now cleared for release, marking a significant reaffirmation of judicial restraint in matters concerning artistic expression and certified cinema.
