Back
leaves legal question open in 'The Kerala Story' controversy, allows fresh plea
The today disposed of three petitions arising from the 2023 controversy surrounding the film The Kerala Story , leaving open the critical legal question of whether a challenging a certificate is maintainable when filed by an aggrieved third party. The bench, comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V Mohana, permitted the petitioners to file a fresh, comprehensive seeking general guidelines to curb in films.
Background: A Film That Ignited a Firestorm
Released in , The Kerala Story , directed by Sudipto Sen and produced by Vipul Amritlal Shah, claimed that nearly 32,000 women from Kerala were converted through deceit into Islam and forced to join the Islamic State (ISIS). The movie sparked intense political and social backlash. The then Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan, along with the ruling CPI(M) and the opposition Congress, condemned the film as false propaganda designed to create communal hatred and tarnish the state’s image. The West Bengal government imposed a ban on the film’s exhibition, a move the stayed in .
Challenges to the film’s certification had already reached the . A Division Bench of the High Court refused to stay the movie’s release after the producer agreed to remove the controversial teaser claiming “over 32,000 women recruited by ISIS.” Later, the High Court disposed of a on the ground that a is not maintainable against the grant of a certificate by the CBFC—a position that the was now asked to revisit.
The Hearing: Arguments and Observations
The matter came up for hearing before a three-judge bench. , appearing for petitioners Qurban Ali and BR Aravindakshan, stressed that despite the movie’s release and its continued availability on OTT platforms, the underlying legal issues remained live. He pointed out that the High Court had dismissed the on grounds, noting that only the producer has a statutory remedy under the . Pasha argued that for any other aggrieved person, a under is the only recourse, and the court must not shut that door.
Justice V Mohana observed that the movie had already been released, but Justice Joymalya Bagchi interjected with a notable remark: “The litigation has to await another movie… another movie that is controversial, we will go into that question.” The bench thus declined to rule on the issue at this stage, leaving the question of law open for future consideration.
Pasha then pressed for a broader remedy, urging the court to lay down guidelines for films that promote . “Guidelines have to be laid down for films that promote ,” he submitted. Chief Justice Surya Kant responded, “Alright, file a comprehensive seeking general guidelines,” effectively allowing the petitioners to initiate fresh proceedings with a properly framed plea.
One of the petitions—filed by the producers Sunshine Pictures Pvt Ltd and Vipul Amritlal Shah challenging the West Bengal government’s ban—was withdrawn. The bench recorded in its order that the question of law would remain open and that the parties would have liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings.
Legal Significance: The Conundrum
The core legal issue that remains unresolved is whether an aggrieved third party—someone who is neither the producer nor the applicant for certification—can maintain a challenging a CBFC certificate. The provides a only to the producer. For others, the only avenue is a constitutional writ, but courts have sometimes held that such petitions are not maintainable because the grant of a certificate is a that can be challenged only by the person directly affected.
This case highlights the tension between the need for effective of film certification—especially when a film allegedly incites hatred or —and the procedural barrier of . The ’s decision to leave the question open means that future litigants will have to wait for another controversial film to test the issue.
In the interim, the court’s invitation to file a comprehensive petition seeking general guidelines on offers a potential avenue for a forward-looking remedy. If such guidelines are framed, they could provide a substantive framework for the CBFC and the courts to assess films that walk the line between artistic expression and incitement.
The Sequel and Broader Implications
The controversy did not end with the original film. In , The Kerala Story 2 was released. Initially, a single bench of the stayed its release, finding that the CBFC had failed to properly assess the risk of . However, in a special sitting, a Division Bench lifted the stay, allowing the sequel to screen. This dichotomy—the CBFC’s certificate being insufficiently scrutinised—underscores the need for clearer guidelines.
For legal professionals, the ’s order is a reminder that procedural hurdles can sometimes delay substantive justice. The court’s willingness to hear a fresh petition for guidelines signals that it recognises the gap in the current regulatory regime. Practitioners may advise clients who are aggrieved by a film’s content to consider both a pre-release challenge through a carefully drafted and a post-release complaint under the existing criminal law, while also monitoring the possibility of a from the apex court.
Conclusion: Questions Deferred, Not Denied
By disposing of the petitions without answering the question, the has deferred a significant constitutional issue. The invitation to file a fresh plea for guidelines, however, offers a strategic pathway for civil society and legal activists. As Justice Bagchi noted, the court will delve into these issues when the next controversial movie emerges. Until then, the legal community must watch for that next case—and prepare to litigate the boundaries of , film certification, and the right to petition.
