Back
Leaves 'The Kerala Story 2' in Limbo: Division Bench Reserves Order After Fiery Free Speech Clash
In a late-night showdown just hours after a single judge slammed the brakes on its release, the 's Division Bench has reserved orders on appeals by producer Vipul Amrutlal Shah against the interim stay on The Kerala Story 2: Goes Beyond . The film, a sequel to the National Award-winning The Kerala Story , was certified U/A by the after 16 mandated cuts but faced last-minute challenges alleging it denigrates Kerala and risks communal discord. Justices Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and P.V. Balakrishnan heard urgent arguments until late Thursday, , but issued no interim relief—leaving the 15-day stay by Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas intact and derailing the worldwide rollout in 1,500 Indian and over 300 overseas theaters.
From Teaser Backlash to Courtroom Battle
The controversy ignited with the film's teaser and trailer, prompting writ petitions from Kerala natives Sreedev Namboodiri, Freddy V. Francis, and others. They argued the movie falsely portrays Kerala as a hub of forced conversions and radicalization—echoing debunked claims from the prequel about 32,000 women—violating their right to reputation under
and risking social harmony. Justice Thomas, in his single bench order, found
"
" by the CBFC under
, noting the teaser's potential to
"distort public perception and disturb communal harmony."
He stayed release for 15 days pending fuller hearings and urged scrutiny by higher authorities.
Shah, represented by senior advocates and , rushed writ appeals (WA Nos. 547/2026 and 548/2026), titled , highlighting the film's expansion beyond Kerala to Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh protagonists fighting "social evils" like radicalization.
Producers' Rallying Cry: "Don't Let Courts Kill Creativity"
Kaul unleashed a barrage: the petitions, filed 16 days post-teaser at the "eleventh hour," smacked of
lacking
—why should a single Keralite claim personal injury from a certified film? He mocked frailty claims—
"Are we so frail that a movie would scandalise or shake the faiths and tenets of a religion?"
—and stressed courts' restraint in prequel litigation, where no stay was granted despite similar flak.
Artistic freedom reigned supreme: storyline choice is a storyteller's prerogative, CBFC applied mind (16 cuts, including 2-minute replacements), and no denigration of Kerala—
"a great State everyone loves."
Commercial Armageddon loomed:
"This disruption... finishes a person... destroys free speech with commercial disruption."
Kaul slammed the single judge for retaining the writ despite a pending revision before the Centre (under pre-amendment Section 6, now disputed), citing
precedent in
decrying parallel proceedings that stall statutory remedies.
Peter reinforced: three original petitions were PIL-like; one dismissed outright. Refusing a screening earlier was tactical, focused on maintainability.
Petitioners Dig In: "Our Reputation, Not Just Kerala's"
Advocate
countered fiercely: this invades personal
rights—
"right to reputation is about a person's entire personality"
—as Keralites face discrimination abroad from the bad light cast on the state. Prayers sought title tweaks (drop "Kerala"), axing conversion references, and ditching "inspired by true events" for a fiction disclaimer. No contradiction in timing: teasers inflicted immediate harm.
tilts their way—
"Tomorrow, the movie will get released, I will have no remedy. They will get more money."
Hegde invoked where the nudged a title change to protect communities, urging 's broad scope for relief.
Bench's Sharp Probes: PIL Masquerade or Genuine Grievance?
The Division Bench zeroed in:
"Who is this petitioner? What is the
?"
Observing PIL trappings, they questioned single-bench entertainment and revision maintainability post-Cinematograph amendments deleting Central revisional powers.
"This is not revisional power. Under which provision?"
Dharmadhikari grilled. Remarks like
"You may be affected, but you are espousing the cause of all the people of Kerala"
underscored skepticism. No screening?
"The learned Single Judge had earlier asked to view the movie, which the appellants had declined."
CBFC counsel noted cuts proved application of mind. Precedents like The Kerala Story PILs in and non-interference in other faiths' satires fueled debate.
Verdict Reserved: Stay Holds, Piracy and Profits in Peril
With orders reserved—expected Friday—the stay endures, dooming the release and sparking piracy fears abroad. No explicit final language emerged, but the bench's restraint signals deeper scrutiny of free speech versus harmony under , balancing CBFC expertise against writ overreach.
This saga underscores rising tensions: last-minute stays post-certification could "weaponise procedural remedies," as Kaul warned, chilling cinema amid social-issue storytelling. Future releases may demand tighter timelines, robust locus checks, and swift statutory resolutions—lest courts become unwitting censors.
Key Observations
"Are we so frail that a movie would shake religious tenets?"– Sr. Adv. , encapsulating free speech defiance.
" there was a ... possibility of communal disharmony or denigration of a community."– Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas, justifying the stay.
"The Single Judge can't substitute his view for that of the statutory body, the CBFC."– Sr. Adv. Kaul on judicial restraint.
"It is not a PIL. How are his rights affected?"– Justice Dharmadhikari questioning locus.
"The content of the film’s teaser has a potential to distort public perception and disturb communal harmony."– Single bench order rationale.
