Kerala High Court Refuses Fresh PIL Against Kerala Story 2, Warns Against Remarks on Coordinate Bench

The Kerala High Court on Thursday declined to entertain a fresh public interest litigation concerning the film “The Kerala Story 2: Goes Beyond”, while strongly criticising the petitioner for making remarks against a coordinate Bench that had earlier allowed the movie’s release.

The petition, Chandramohan K.C. v. Union of India, sought a direction to remove the words “Kerala” or “Keralam” from the movie title. However, the Court noted that similar issues are already being examined in pending proceedings before another Division Bench.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. observed that intervening at this stage would be inappropriate because an appeal and a related writ petition concerning the film are already pending before a coordinate Bench.

The Court indicated that entertaining the new PIL could potentially result in conflicting judicial views. It therefore directed the petitioner to approach the Bench already hearing the matter so that the issues could be considered together.

The Bench remarked:

“We don’t want to open a third. There could be possibility of chance of a different views taken. So conflict of opinion could be there. So, it’s better that the Bench hearing that matter should hear this also.”

The judges also emphasised that any order passed in the present PIL could dilute the earlier decision allowing the film’s release. Maintaining judicial discipline and the principle of comity among Benches, the Court suggested tagging the petition with the pending appeal.

During the hearing, the Court took serious objection to statements in the petition suggesting that the earlier Division Bench had taken up the matter in an “unprecedented manner”. The judges described such remarks as casting an aspersion on the judiciary.

Chief Justice Sen cautioned the petitioner’s counsel that criticism of a judgement is permissible, but allegations that undermine the institution of the court are unacceptable.

“You may criticise a judgment. No problem with that. But you are casting an aspersion… Just remember one thing, you have to respect the institution. We will come, we will go. But the institution will remain,” the Court said.

The Bench also questioned why the petitioner had chosen to file a PIL instead of seeking recall of the earlier order or approaching the Supreme Court through a special leave petition.

Responding to the Court’s concerns, the petitioner’s counsel clarified that there was no SLP pending before the Supreme Court and apologised for including the disputed statements in the petition.

The counsel assured the Court that the contentious paragraph would be withdrawn.

The Bench further reminded the parties that comments targeting judges or Benches damage the credibility of the judicial institution itself. It emphasised that advocates must exercise restraint and maintain decorum while raising legal challenges.

With these observations, the Court declined to entertain the fresh PIL and advised that the issue be pursued before the Bench already seized of the matter.