Artistic freedom of expression under the Cinematograph Act must be upheld, and censorship must consider the overall social message of a film without imposing undue restrictions.

JUDGMENT :

P.V. BALAKRISHNAN, J.

1. These intra-court appeals are filed challenging the judgment dated 14.11.2025 in W.P.(C)No.37251 of 2025, allowing the writ petition filed by respondents 1 and 2 herein.

2. The W.A.No.2803 of 2025 is filed by the additional 5^th respondent and W.A.No.2926 of 2025 is filed by respondent Nos. 1 to 2 in W.P.(C) No.37251 of 2025.

3. The parties are hereinafter referred to as in their status in Writ Appeal No.2926 of 2025 for convenience.

4. The facts in brief, as are necessary for the disposal of these writ appeals, are as follows:

The 1^st respondent is the producer and the 2^nd respondent is the Director of the movie titled “HAAL”. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 under the banner “JVJ Productions” produced the afore movie, starring Shane Nigam. Initially, it was decided to release the film for Onam, but due to unforeseen reasons, it got delayed. The movie was forwarded and Ext.P3 application was submitted before the 2^nd appellant for censor certificate. The movie was played before the Censor Board on 10.09.2025 and it was informed that further communications will be issued shortly. Later, while checking the application status, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 came to know that the same has been forwarded to the Revision Committee. It was without any intimation to respondent Nos. 1 and 2, the application was forwarded to the Revision Committee and the same is illegal and arbitrary. Even though as per Ext.P5 application status it is stated that the matter is pending before the Revision Committee, no intimations were received by respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Since the matter was delayed, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.25576 of 2025. In the meantime, on 06.10.2025, the 2^nd appellant communicated Ext.P6 decision to respondent Nos. 1 and 2 stating that the movie is not suitable for unrestricted exhibition. It was also stated that restricted public exhibition can be granted with A certificate subject to certain excisions and modifications. The decision of the 2^nd appellant is illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice; having no reasoning for curtailing the fundamental rights of freedom of speech and expression. Hence, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed the afore writ petition challenging Ext.P6.

5. The learned Single Judge, after watching the movie and considering the materials on record and hearing both sides, allowed the writ petition and quashed Exts.P6 decision, except excision Nos. 5 and 6, which respondents 1 and 2 have agreed to expunge. The learned Single Judge also directed the Board to issue fresh certification after completing the procedural formalities within two months of re-submission.

6. Heard Adv. Sri.Shinu J. Pillai, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant in W.A.No.2803 of 2025, Adv.G.Sreekumar (Chelur), the learned Senior Panel Counsel appearing for the appellant in W.A.No.2926 of 2025 and Adv. Joseph Kodiyanthra, the learned Senior counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. The movie was also viewed by us on 03.12.2025 to appreciate the facts and contentions better.

7. The learned counsel for the appellant in Writ Appeal No. 2803 of 2025 contended that the excisions/modifications prescribed by the Censor Board are required to be adhered to, since those scenes are against public order, decency, and morality of the society and will not adhere to the contemporary standards of the country and the people. He, by relying on a decision of this Court in Shahan Sha A. and another v. State of Kerala, 2010 (1) KLJ 47, con