Just when you thought the buzz around ‘The Kerala Story 2: Goes Beyond’ was only about its plot twists, the real drama has shifted to the courtroom. The Kerala High Court is now asking big questions, raising eyebrows, and even planning a special screening before it decides whether the film’s censor certificate should stand or not. Yes, the judges want to ‘watch the movie themselves’ before giving the final word.
The Kerala High Court has asked the Central government to clarify today itself whether a screening of ‘The Kerala Story 2: Goes Beyond’ can be arranged for the Court. The judges are not rushing blindly; they want to see the film before deciding on the petitions challenging its censor certificate.
Also Read: Anurag Kashyap rages against ‘The Kerala Story 2’; director Kamakhya Narayan Singh hits back on forced beef scenes
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas made it clear that the Court cannot dismiss the pleas without understanding what exactly the film shows. He even said that all assumptions about the movie could settle only if the Court watches it. That’s why they have asked the Centre to provide instructions by the post-lunch session.
“Kerala lives in harmony,” says the court
After reading parts of the film’s dialogues transcript, Justice Thomas reportedly observed that Kerala is a place where people live in total harmony, but the film seems to show a different picture.
According to the Court’s oral remarks, portraying such incidents as if they are happening across the entire State gives a “wrong indication” and could even incite strong emotions. The judge hinted that this is exactly where the role of the censor board becomes crucial, whether it has properly examined the possible social impact of such portrayals.
Artistic freedom vs social responsibility
The Court also walked a careful line between supporting artistic freedom and questioning social consequences. Justice Thomas openly said he usually does not interfere with movies because creative freedom is important. But there is a catch.
The concern becomes serious when a film claims to be based on real events and uses the name of an entire State in its title.
According to the Court, this combination could potentially create communal tension, especially if viewers begin associating isolated incidents with the entire population of that region.
Also Read: Pinarayi Vijayan questions how ‘poisonous’ films like ‘The Kerala Story 2’ get screened while others are barred
The petitioners challenging the film’s censor certificate came fully prepared with their arguments. Their main claim? It boldly carries the name “Kerala” in its title, which could mislead audiences.
They even pointed out that during a meeting held by the filmmakers in Delhi, the victims of terror acts discussed were not from Kerala at all. When asked about this contradiction, the makers allegedly said that the movie is not strictly about Kerala but reflects events across India.
Supreme Court precedent adds more heat
To strengthen their case, the petitioners referred to a recent Supreme Court matter involving a Netflix film initially titled “Ghooskhor Pandit.”
In that case, the Court reportedly observed that a movie title should not offend or denigrate an entire section of society. The makers eventually changed the title after the objection.
By bringing up this precedent, the petitioners hinted that the same principle should apply here. According to them, a title should not stigmatise a region or community, especially when the story itself is broader than the title suggests.
Filmmakers defend their censor certificate
On the other side of the courtroom, the filmmakers stood firm. Their key argument was that once the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) has granted certification, there is a legal presumption in favour of the film.
In simple terms, they believe the censor board has already done its job, and that approval should not be lightly questioned.
But the Court was quick to point out that such presumption is not absolute. The judge remarked that the presumption can still face rebuttal if the film itself reveals content that might provoke communal tension or spread misleading impressions.
Another interesting observation made by the Court: the film loudly claims to be “inspired by true events,” while disclaimers about fictional characters appear in tiny letters. That contrast, according to the bench, can significantly influence public perception.
Teaser controversy adds fuel to fire
As if the title debate wasn’t enough, another twist entered the scene. One petitioner alleged that the film’s teaser was out publicly without obtaining a censor certificate. That’s a serious charge in the world of film certification.
The filmmakers responded, saying that the teaser content is not actually part of the movie. Hearing this, the Court asked an obvious but important question: if the teaser content is different, then why not simply screen the film and clear the doubts?
The bench even commented that the teaser of the previous film in the series did not appear as serious as the current controversy suggests. Still the Court insisted that law lays down certain restrictions and they cannot be ignored.
Prejudice concerns after first film
Another petitioner raised broader concern that goes beyond just one movie. According to them, ever since first ‘The Kerala Story’ film released, there has been noticeable prejudice against Malayalees and people from Kerala in various parts of the world.
The argument here is not about cinema but about social impact. If repeated narratives associate terrorism or extremism with specific region, it could stigmatise the people belonging to that region affecting their identity and global image.
Court acknowledged this concern noting that government guidelines clearly say that visuals or words contemptuous of racial, religious, other groups should not be in films.