Kerala High Court Clears Release of The Kerala Story 2: Goes Beyond Citing Landmark Padmaavat and Aarakshan Judgments
On February 27, a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court—Justices Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and P V Balakrishnan—stayed a Single Judge’s interim order that had imposed a 15-day halt on the release of The Kerala Story 2: Goes Beyond.
The Single Judge’s order was based on selected teaser clips, expressing concern that the film might disturb communal harmony and questioning whether the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) had properly applied its mind under Section 5B of the Cinematograph Act, 1952. However, the appellate bench emphasized a key constitutional principle: once the CBFC, as the statutory expert authority, certifies a film after viewing it in full, courts should presume that due diligence has been exercised.In reaching this decision, the bench referenced two major Supreme Court rulings:
Prakash Jha Productions v. Union of India (2011), concerning Aarakshan, where the Supreme Court ruled that states cannot suspend or prohibit the screening of a CBFC-certified film based solely on fears of law and order issues. The court clarified that maintaining public order is the state’s responsibility, not grounds to curtail certified artistic expression.
Viacom18 Media Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India (2018), related to Padmaavat, where the Supreme Court reaffirmed that creative content enjoys protection under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. The court held that once certification is granted, there is a presumption that all statutory guidelines—including those concerning public order and communal harmony—have been duly considered. States cannot block exhibition on speculative or preventive grounds.
The Kerala High Court also noted the petitioners had not watched the full film and were relying only on teaser clips. It highlighted that the producer had implemented all CBFC-mandated changes, further confirming proper scrutiny. Thus, the court ruled that selective excerpts alone could not justify a finding of inadequate application of mind.
These precedents underline that freedom of expression is protected, and state authorities cannot impose bans on films already cleared by the CBFC simply due to anticipated public unrest or communal sensitivities.
