The court's decision emphasized the limited scope of intervention under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in film certification matters and highlighted the availability of remedies under the Cinematograph Act, 1952.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to consider the petitioner''S representation dated on 05.11.2022, 06.11.2022 and 27.04.2023 given by the petitioner and completely band the film “The Kerala Story” in cinema halls and all other platforms.)

A.D. Jagadish Chandira, J.

1. The petitioner who claims himself to be a journalist and a public spirit person has filed this writ petition with a prayer to consider his representations dated 05.11.2022, 06.11.2022 & 27.04.2023 and to completely ban the film “ The Kerala Story” in Cinema Halls and other platforms.

2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the subject movie is likely to be released on 05.05.2023 in four languages namely Tamil, Telugu, Hindi and Malayalam and the story line of the film is based on false information without any supporting documents. It is his further grievance that the release of the movie is likely to promote enmity between two different groups on the ground of religion which would be prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony and also against the security of the State and Public Order.

3. Mr.R.Abubucker, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that despite several representations, no action was taken by the competent authority to ban the proposed release of the subject movie. Instead, the Central Board of Film Certification has issued a certification dated 24.04.2023 under the category ''A''. It is further submitted that the Director and the Actor of the movie have given press statements which are provocative in nature and are likely to cause disharmony to the society and divide the society on communal lines. It is submitted that the film has been certified contrary to Section 5B of the Cinematograph Act, 1952.

4. Mr.V.Chandrasekaran, the learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 3 submitted that after due consideration, the second respondent / Central Board of Film Certification has certified that the subject film was fit for theatrical release under the category ''A'' – Adults only. He further submitted that the prayer sought for by the petitioner should not be entertained by this Court. He therefore submitted that the Writ Petition should be dismissed.

5. Mr.J.Ravindran, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the fourth respondent submitted that a similar case was filed before the High Court of Kerala in the case of Adv.Anoop V.R. Vs. Union of India and others in W.P.(C) No.15036 of 2023 on 02.05.2023 and the High Court of Kerala declined to grant any interim relief against the grant of certificate for release of the subject film and had listed the case for further orders on 05.05.2023. He further submitted that the Court also had directed the DSGI to file an affidavit / statement on behalf of respondent 1 to 3 therein. He further submitted that since the Court had declined to grant any interim relief, a Writ Petition (Civil) in Diary No(s). 18735/2023 was also filed before the Hon''ble Supreme Court and the Hon''ble Supreme Court has dismissed the said writ petition today (i.e. 04.05.2023) with liberty to the petitioner therein to move the Kerala High Court.

6. Mr.Satish Parasaran, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the fifth respondent submitted that once the film certification has been granted by the competent authority, it cannot be challenged under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In this connection the learned counsel for the fifth respondent has relied on the following cases:

1. Union of India vs. K.M.Shankarappa ; (2001) 1 SCC 582

2. M/s.Prakash Jha Productions & Another vs. Union of India and Others (Film “Aarakshan”); (2011) 8 SCC 372

3. Harinder Singh Sikka Vs. Union of Inda & Others (Film “Nanak Shah Fakir”); Writ Petition(s) (Civil) No(s).313/2018

4. Priya Singh Paul vs. Madhur Bhandarkar & Ors. (Film “Indu Sarkar”); (2018) 13 SCC 438

5. Salman Kha