Kerala High Court Challenges 'Kerala Story 2' Certification Amid Fears of Communal Disharmony

In a significant intervention highlighting the delicate balance between artistic freedom and public tranquility, the Kerala High Court has questioned the Central Board of Film Certification's (CBFC) approval of the upcoming film The Kerala Story 2: Goes Beyond . Presiding Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas orally observed that Kerala "lives in total harmony," yet the film allegedly portrays widespread unrest across the state, potentially inciting communal passions. The court has directed the Centre to clarify by the post-lunch session on February 27, 2026, whether a special screening can be arranged before it rules on petitions seeking to stay the film's release and revoke its censor certificate. This development echoes controversies surrounding the film's prequel and underscores ongoing tensions in India's film censorship regime under the Cinematograph Act, 1952.

The case, blending constitutional free speech protections with safeguards against hate-mongering, has drawn sharp focus from legal practitioners monitoring media law. With the film slated for theatrical release the same day, the High Court's proactive stance—proposing to view the movie itself—signals a readiness to rebut the presumptive validity of CBFC certification if content risks public order.

Background: The Film, Its Prequel, and Fresh Petitions

The Kerala Story 2: Goes Beyond is a sequel to the 2023 blockbuster The Kerala Story , which itself faced multiple legal challenges before the Kerala High Court and Supreme Court over similar allegations of misrepresenting the state and stoking communal divides. Marketed boldly as "inspired by true events," the new film features narratives of terror victims from across India, yet its title prominently invokes "Kerala," prompting accusations of regional stigmatization.

Two writ petitions under Article 226 form the crux: WP(C) No. 6574 of 2026 (Sreedev Namboodiri v. Union of India & Ors.) , filed by advocates Maitreyi Sachidananda Hegde, Rizla K.M., and Deepika K. Sasi; and WP(C) No. 6854 of 2026 (Freddy V. Francis v. Union of India & Ors.) , by advocate Sreerag Shylan. Petitioners argue the CBFC certification contravenes the Cinematograph Act, 1952, particularly guidelines prohibiting visuals or words "contemptuous of racial, religious, or other groups." They contend the teaser's confrontational messaging and title mislead viewers into associating terrorism with Kerala alone, despite filmmakers admitting at a Delhi meeting that victims hail from other states and the story is "pan-India."

Freddy V. Francis specifically branded the titling as "marketing of hate," designed to tarnish Kerala's secular identity post-prequel prejudice against Malayalis globally. Sreedev Namboodiri highlighted the teaser's uncertified exhibition and lack of empirical backing for "true events" claims, urging judicial scrutiny to avert violence.

Last week, the court issued notices to filmmakers and CBFC, with the Deputy Solicitor General taking note on behalf of the Board.

Court's Oral Remarks: Harmony vs. Inflammatory Portrayal

Justice Thomas, emphasizing Kerala's ethos, delivered trenchant observations while perusing dialogue transcripts. "Kerala lives in total harmony. But you have portrayed that this is happening all over Kerala. There is a wrong indication and can also incite passion. That is where the censor board comes into play. Have you considered that?" he remarked, underscoring the Board's statutory duty.

He reiterated: "Kerala is so secular. It lives with total harmony, but have you considered this when something is portrayed as happening all over the state? There is a wrong indication and can even incite passion, and that is when the censor board (CBFC) comes into the picture." The judge noted that the state's residents' apprehensions "cannot be ignored" given the title's use of "Kerala," potentially amplifying misperceptions.

Acknowledging artistic liberties— "Normally, I do not interfere with any movie. Artistic freedom" —Justice Thomas carved an exception for "inspired by true events" claims: "The presumption can be rebutted by the movie itself. Once the movie is released, it is not just a creation. You are saying it is inspired by true events. It has a great bearing...In bold letters, you are saying inspired by true event. And in very microscopic letters you would have said the characters are all fictional."

Petitioners' Arguments and Filmmakers' Counter

Petitioners invoked Atul Mishra v. Union of India , where the Supreme Court held film titles cannot "denigrate a section of society," forcing a change for Netflix's Ghostkhor Pandit . They stressed post- Kerala Story biases and uncertified teasers, with one counsel noting filmmakers' Delhi admission of a non-Kerala focus, rendering the title misleading.

Filmmakers, via Senior Advocate S. Sreekumar, defended the CBFC certificate's presumptive validity under the Act. They clarified teasers exclude final content and agreed to withdraw them pending verdict, offering a screening. The court countered: "If you are saying that the content in the teaser is not in the movie, then there might be a point," while cautioning on law-laid restrictions despite personal reluctance to curb art.

Procedural Directions and Adjournment

The court refused to dismiss pleas as infructuous, directing the Centre: "Get instructions as to whether the movie can be screened... How long would the central govt to decide on the representation? Get instructions by 1:45...All these presumptions can rebutted if the movie depicts something that can incite communal violence." Producers sought time for screening logistics; the matter was posted for 2 PM, with potential viewing the next day.

Legal Framework: Cinematograph Act and Free Speech Limits

The Cinematograph Act, 1952, empowers CBFC under Section 5A to certify films sans public exhibition risk, guided by Section 5B(1) against "undermining security" or "inciting communal antagonism." Judicial review is limited but available if certification is arbitrary (e.g., S. Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram , affirming pre-censorship under Article 19(2) for public order).

Precedents like KA Abbas v. Union of India (pre-certification constitutional) and Bobby Art International v. Om Pal Singh Hoon (permissibility of sensitive portrayals sans glorification) frame the discourse. The Ghostkhor Pandit ruling extends to titles, aligning with petitioners here. Article 19(1)(a)'s freedom yields to reasonable restrictions, including defamation or incitement ( Shreya Singhal v. UoI ).

CBFC's own advisories reinforce bans on group-contemptuous content, rebuttable here if screening reveals harmony.

Analysis: Rebuttable Presumptions and Judicial Scrutiny

Justice Thomas's approach innovates by proposing direct viewing, piercing certification's veil—a rare but potent tool post- The Kerala Story litigations. This rebuts Section 5C's finality aura, echoing Union of India v. KA Abbas . Claiming "true events" elevates scrutiny: films blur fiction-fact, risking real-world harm ( Pathaan boycott threats).

Title misuse implicates commercial speech limits ( Tata Press v. MTNL ), misleading consumers/communities. For legal eagles, this bolsters Article 226 pleas pre-release, shifting burden via prima facie content review.

Implications for Legal Practice and Justice System

Film litigators gain ammunition: empirical "true events" proof demands; teaser injunctions viable. CBFC faces calls for transparent guidelines enforcement amid Bollywood's "based on true events" trend. Constitutionally, it refines Maneka Gandhi proportionality in 19(2) curbs.

Producers confront marketing risks—pan-India tales sans state-naming; global Malayali diaspora watches for reputational torts. Broader: fortifies federal sensitivities, deterring state-bashing sans basis. Entertainment bar must navigate HC's harmony prioritization, potentially inspiring PILs nationwide.

If stayed/edited, expect SC appeal, enriching jurisprudence.

Conclusion

As Kerala HC weighs screening The Kerala Story 2 , its harmony defense spotlights censorship's public order pivot. Outcome will shape 2026's film battles, balancing canvas liberty with societal peace—watch post-lunch for ripples.