Back
Declines for Screening of 7 Documentaries at IDSFFK Festival
Festival's Final Days Marred by Censorship Standoff
The on Monday declined to grant that would have allowed the provisional screening of seven documentaries at the 18th International Documentary and Short Film Festival of Keralam (IDSFFK), which began on and was set to conclude on . Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas, hearing a writ petition from the , found no arbitrariness in the Union government's decision to withhold permission for these seven films.
A Race Against the Festival Clock
The Chalachithra Academy, the festival's organizing body, approached the High Court aggrieved by the Central government's inaction on granting censorship exemptions for a handful of films while the festival was already underway. The festival is a non-commercial event designed for registered delegates including filmmakers, film society organizers, film technicians, critics, media persons, and students.
Under , the Central Government may grant exemptions from certification requirements. Following guidelines issued by the , the Academy submitted exemption applications for 347 documentaries and short films selected for the festival. By an order dated , the government granted exemptions for 291 films, leaving 56 without clearance. Subsequent processing reportedly brought the number of cleared films to 339, leaving just seven in limbo.
The Final Seven: Caught Between Ministries
Additional Solicitor General , appearing for the , clarified the arithmetic before the court: the Academy itself withdrew one film from the original list of 347, leaving 346 for consideration. Of these, 315 were permitted to be screened directly, while another 24 had already obtained certification—bringing the total cleared to 339.
The remaining seven, the ASGI submitted, were under active review—six had been referred to the for inputs on content, and one had been referred to the for a similar purpose.
Senior counsel , representing the Academy, argued that despite furnishing additional screeners and materials sought by the Ministry, no clear or reasoned decision had been communicated regarding these seven films.
"No "
Rejecting the plea for an interim order, Justice Thomas observed:
"Having heard Sri. Sudhi Vasudevan, the learned Senior Counsel... and Sri. , the learned ASGI... I am of the view that, , there is no in withholding 7 out of the 346 documentaries submitted to the Ministry for screening. Hence, I decline to grant any interim order in this case."
The Court's refusal to intervene at an interim stage signals deference to the government's ongoing content review process, particularly where assessments by the Ministries of Home and External Affairs are concerned. The Court noted that with the majority of films—over 98% of the final list—having received clearance, the withholding of seven films did not, on its face, suggest a pattern of suppression or administrative overreach.
What Happens Next
The Court posted the matter for further consideration on , directing the respondents to file a statement in the meantime. This gives the Ministries time to complete their content review and either grant or formally refuse exemption, with reasons that the Academy can then contest.
For the seven filmmakers whose works remain unscreened, the practical impact is immediate: the festival has now concluded without their films being shown to delegates. However, the larger legal question—whether the government's opaque referral process for film exemptions violates statutory mandates or —remains open for the November hearing.
Case Title:
Case No.:
Bench:
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas
