The Kerala High Court on Friday vacated the interim stay imposed by a single-judge on the release of ‘Kerala Story 2 – Goes Beyond’ and paved way for the release of the movie.
A Division Bench comprising Justices SA Dharmadhikari and PV Balakrishnan lifted the order that stayed the release of the movie and posted the case after two weeks. The Court passed the order on writ appeals from producer Vipul Amrutlal Shah against the order of the Single Judge staying the release of the movie for 15 days.
The single bench of Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas on Thursday stayed the release of the movie for 15 days, observing that prima facie there is non-application of mind by the censor board while certifying the movie. The single-judge had passed an interim order on two petitions challenging the release of the movie on the grounds that the movie misrepresents Kerala and could incite communal disharmony.
The Division Bench convened an urgent hearing of the writ appeals at 7.30 pm on Thursday, just hours after the Single Judge had passed the interim order. The producers of the movie approached the division bench seeking an urgent hearing of its appeal, emphasising that the movie was slated for international release on Friday.
After a detailed hearing which lasted over two hours, the Bench reserved its verdict in the matter.
Senior Advocates Elvin Peter and Neeraj Kishan Kaul appeared on behalf of the producer of the film. Advocates Maitreyi Hegde and Sreerag Shylan raised arguments on behalf of the petitioners, who had challenged the censor certification of the film.
Senior counsel Kaul had argued that it was the prerogative of the storyteller to tell the story that he wants and which social evil he wants to address in a movie. He contended that courts have, in the past, refused to interfere when other religions’ social evils were portrayed in movies and the same view should be taken in this case as well.
Kaul submitted that a movie cannot shake the tenets of a religion or cause disruption of communal harmony. He further argued that the present movie in no way denigrates Kerala. He argued that commercial disruption can curtail free speech, and destroy the prospects of a filmmaker.
Advocate Elvin Peter in his arguments questioned the maintainability of the writ petitions and locus of the petitioners. He contended that the matter was in the nature of a public interest litigation and ought to have been heard by a Division Bench.
He also argued that the nature of the Single Judge’s interim order was as good as allowing the writ petition itself, and the same is impermissible. He further contended that the Cinematograph Act’s Section 6, though it vests revisional powers on the Central government, it is not a statutory remedy as claimed by the petitioner
Advocate Peter also opposed the Single Judge’s finding that the CBFC had not applied its mind while granting the certification. He pointed out that 16 cuts were suggested by the Board, and that clearly shows application of mind.
The petitioners’ counsels defended their locus standi and the maintainability of their pleas. Advocate Maitreyi Hegde argued that the fundamental right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution includes the right to reputation. She contended that a person’s reputation includes his entire personality and the region that belongs to. A bad portrayal of Kerala affects his individual reputation and rights.