Kerala HC Questions Catholic Congress' Locus Standi in 'Haal' Film Appeal, Verdict Reserved

KOCHI – The Kerala High Court has reserved its judgment in a writ appeal that raises a fundamental question of procedural law: Can a respondent in a writ petition, who has suffered no direct legal injury from the judgment, file an appeal seeking relief? This question of locus standi is at the forefront of the appeal filed by the Catholic Congress against a Single Judge's order that favored the makers of the Malayalam movie 'Haal'.

The Division Bench, comprising Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice P.V. Balakrishnan, on Thursday, November 27, concluded hearings in the appeal (WA 2803/2025) and indicated its primary concern was not the merits of the film's content, but the appellant's very right to challenge the Single Judge's decision. The Catholic Congress is contesting the quashing of several excisions ordered by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) for scenes they allege hurt Christian religious sentiments.

The verdict, expected within days, could have significant implications for impleaded parties and their appellate rights within the writ jurisdiction of the High Court.

The Core of the Dispute: A Question of Standing

The legal drama began when the filmmakers of 'Haal' successfully challenged a series of cuts and an 'A' certification mandated by the CBFC. The Single Judge, in a ruling that championed creative freedom, quashed the CBFC's directive for excisions 2, 3, and 4 and ordered the Board to reconsider the certification. The Catholic Congress, which had impleaded itself as the 5th respondent in the original writ petition, has now appealed this decision, seeking the reinstatement of the cuts.

However, the Division Bench immediately focused on the maintainability of the appeal itself. Justice Dharmadhikari orally observed the procedural anomaly, questioning the legal basis for a respondent to seek substantive relief through an appeal.

"Basic thing that anyone knows. As a respondent, can you get any relief?...Any relief you want, you have file a writ, separate," Justice Dharmadhikari remarked during the proceedings.

The Bench underscored the principle that a legal remedy is typically available only to a party that has suffered a "legal injury." The court questioned what injury the Catholic Congress, as a respondent, had suffered from the Single Judge's order that granted relief to the original petitioners (the filmmakers).

"How one can jump and come? You are arguing on merits. We are thinking on a different line...Locus. First question is of locus... No legal remedy, legal injury, then it has to entertained? There is a law," the Bench orally stated, signaling its primary focus.

Appellant's Arguments on Merits and Maintainability

Advocate Shinu J. Pillai, representing the Catholic Congress, defended the appeal's maintainability by arguing that since the Single Judge had adjudicated the matter as a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, a writ appeal under Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act was a valid recourse.

Pivoting to the merits, the appellant contended that the Single Judge's order was flawed. The Catholic Congress objects to several scenes, primarily:

1. Portrayal of the Bishop: The film allegedly depicts the Bishop of Thamarassery as supportive of an inter-faith marriage, which the appellant claims is contrary to his known public stance.

2. Use of Church Property: The appeal states that the exterior of the Thamarassery Bishop's house was filmed without consent from the competent ecclesiastical authority. Justice Dharmadhikari appeared skeptical of this ground, remarking, "Where is the question of consent? He must be aware when the shooting took place...outside? Not even entering the premises?"

3. Allegations of 'Love Jihad': The appeal memorandum explicitly claims the Single Judge ignored the film's references to 'Love Jihad' and an attempt by the filmmakers to justify it.

4. Infringement of Religious Rights: The appellant argues that the film infringes upon fundamental rights under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution by questioning Christian clergy and practices.

The specific excisions the Catholic Congress wants reinstated include scenes allegedly stereotyping religious communities (Excision 2), scenes deemed to hurt Christian sentiments (Excision 3), and those purportedly showing state authorities in a poor light (Excision 4).

The Filmmakers' Defense and Judicial Restraint

Senior Counsel Joseph Kodianthara, representing the filmmakers, countered that the Bishop is portrayed in the "best light" in the movie, merely encouraging individuals to follow their own faith.

The Bench, for its part, was reluctant to delve into the content of the film without viewing it, a suggestion made by the appellant's counsel. Justice Dharmadhikari expressed reservations about relying on subtitles, noting, "It's in Malayalam. Important lines are always missing (from subtitles). That changes the entire story." This judicial restraint brought the focus back to the threshold question of law: the appellant's standing.

When the Catholic Congress pressed for an interim stay on the certification process, the Court declined, stating it would first decide on the appeal's maintainability. "We will pass judgment in 2-3 days. Reserved. We'll see. If it is maintainable, we will pass order on merits," the Bench assured the parties.

Background: The Single Judge's Ruling on Creative Freedom

The Single Judge's original verdict, which is now under challenge, had heavily favored artistic expression. It quashed the CBFC's required cuts, opining that the film was "in tune with the foundational principles enunciated in the Constitution of India."

The court had found that the portrayal of the Bishop blessing an inter-faith couple was well within the filmmakers' creative freedom. It also dismissed objections to a scene where the Christian heroine wore a Muslim attire, stating it could not be termed indecent, immoral, or capable of inciting violence. Notably, the filmmakers had voluntarily agreed to two other excisions related to a "beef biriyani scene" and references to a "cultural organisation," and the court, therefore, did not rule on the merits of those cuts.

Legal Implications and What Lies Ahead

The impending judgment from the Division Bench is poised to be a significant procedural clarification. If the court dismisses the appeal on the grounds of locus standi , it would reinforce the traditional view that a respondent in a writ petition cannot step into the shoes of an appellant to seek relief they did not originally pray for. Such a party's recourse would be to file an independent writ petition, thereby becoming a petitioner in their own right.

This would serve as a crucial precedent for interest groups and impleaded parties, outlining the procedural pathway they must follow to agitate their claims. Conversely, if the court finds the appeal maintainable, it would potentially broaden the scope of appellate rights for respondents in writ matters. In that event, the court would then have to rule on the substantive, and often contentious, conflict between creative license and religious sensibilities. For now, the legal community awaits a decision that will first define the right to appeal before it ever touches the art of the film.