Kerala HC to Hear 'Haal' Film Dispute as Writ Petition Amid Procedural Gap, Allows Catholic Group's Intervention

KOCHI – The Kerala High Court is set to navigate the intricate intersection of artistic freedom, religious sentiment, and procedural law in the controversy surrounding the upcoming Malayalam film 'Haal'. In a significant hearing on October 17, the court not only permitted the Catholic Congress to formally join the legal challenge against the film but also highlighted a critical procedural gap in the appellate mechanism under the Cinematograph Act, 1952, compelling it to hear the matter as a writ petition.

Justice V.G. Arun will preside over the case, Juby Thomas and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. [WP(C) No. 37251/2025], which was initiated by the film's producer and director. They contest the Central Board of Film Certification's (CBFC) decision to grant 'Haal' an 'A' (Adults only) certificate, contingent on several excisions. The court has scheduled a hearing for October 21 to determine a date for the judge to view the film, a move that underscores the judiciary's increasingly hands-on role in censorship disputes following the abolition of the Film Certification Appellate Tribunal (FCAT).

The Procedural Conundrum: A Writ Petition by Default

A central legal issue that emerged during the proceedings is the High Court's jurisdiction and the proper procedural vehicle for challenging CBFC decisions. The filmmakers initially intended to file a statutory appeal under Section 5C of the Cinematograph Act. However, the High Court Registry noted that no specific nomenclature exists for such an appeal, creating a procedural impasse.

After reviewing a report from the Registrar General, the Court concluded that until a specific classification is established, such challenges must be heard under its writ jurisdiction. Justice Arun orally remarked on the need for a distinct nomenclature, suggesting "MFA (Cinematograph Act)" to avoid confusion with other Miscellaneous First Appeals. He noted, "Each MFA has a different nomenclature. There is no MFA (Miscellaneous)... Otherwise, it will not be accepted." This decision effectively forces the matter to be argued as a writ petition, shifting the legal focus from a straightforward statutory appeal to a question of whether the CBFC's actions were arbitrary, illegal, or violated fundamental rights.

This development holds significant implications for legal practitioners in media and entertainment law, highlighting a legislative and procedural gap left in the wake of the FCAT's dissolution. The judiciary's pragmatic approach of using its writ jurisdiction ensures that creators have a remedy, but it also changes the nature and scope of the review.

Catholic Congress Intervenes, Alleging 'Love Jihad' Promotion

The case was further complicated by the successful impleadment of the Catholic Congress. The religious organization, representing the laity of the Syro-Malabar church, filed an affidavit arguing that the film's content is a threat to communal harmony and hurts the sentiments of the Christian community.

The core of their objection, as detailed in the affidavit, is the film's alleged portrayal of a sensitive social issue and a religious figure. The affidavit states, "The contents and plot of the film is per se precipitating the concept of Love Jihad as an encouragable practise and depicted Thamarassery Bishop as a supporter of such objectionable affairs."

The organization contends that this depiction is not only defamatory to the Bishop and the diocese but also promotes a concept that is against Christian norms. The affidavit further claims, "...if such scenes have permitted and the film is exhibited in the present form it will hurt the religious sentiments of the Christian Community and disrupt the peace and harmony of the society..." Additionally, the Catholic Congress alleged that the filmmakers shot scenes at the Thamarassery Bishop's House without obtaining the required permission from ecclesiastical authorities.

The court allowed the impleading petition after the counsel for the filmmakers, producer Juby Thomas and director Muhammed Rafeek, stated they had no objection to the Catholic Congress joining the proceedings.

Filmmakers' Defence: A Message of Interfaith Harmony

In stark contrast, the counsel for 'Haal' presented the film as a vehicle for a positive and timely social message. The plot revolves around a Muslim boy and a Christian girl who fall in love. Facing familial opposition, the couple navigates challenges, including a demand for religious conversion, which the hero staunchly refuses.

The filmmakers' counsel argued that the controversial scene involving the Bishop is, in fact, the film's moral core. According to him, the Bishop advises the interfaith couple to live together while respecting and following their own individual religions. He submitted to the court that this is "one of the best messages that can be conveyed at this time, that too by a Bishop," and noted that both religious communities in the film ultimately accept this counsel.

Challenging the opposition's claims, the counsel rhetorically asked, "What is freedom of expression if such scenes are objected to?... How is the Christian community being put in a bad light?" This frames the central legal conflict as a classic test between the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) and the reasonable restrictions permissible under Article 19(2), which include public order and morality.

CBFC's Cuts and the Path to Court

The filmmakers' initial grievance was with the CBFC's Revising Committee, which recommended an 'A' certificate along with several cuts. These included the removal of scenes depicting the consumption of beef biryani, a song sequence where the heroine wears a burqa, and dialogues referencing 'dhwaj pranam'. The producers claim that these scenes are integral to the film's narrative and that referring the film to the Revising Committee without prior intimation was "illegal and arbitrary." Having invested nearly ₹15 crore, they argue the delay and certification hurdles have jeopardized their planned release.

It was in this context that the filmmakers' counsel urged the court to view the film personally, referencing a Supreme Court observation that it is appropriate for the deciding court to do so. Acknowledging this established practice, Justice Arun expressed his willingness, stating, "I am ready and willing... I'll post it on Tuesday only for the purpose of deciding who all should… then we will fix the date."

As the Kerala High Court prepares to screen 'Haal', the legal community will be watching closely. The case is no longer just about the certification of a single film; it is a test case for the post-FCAT dispute resolution mechanism, a platform for the continuing debate on 'Love Jihad', and a crucial examination of the judiciary's role in balancing constitutionally guaranteed freedoms with sensitive religious and social concerns.