Legal Challenge Begins
The Kerala High Court is currently engaged in critical hearings concerning petitions lodged against the impending release of the film 'The Kerala Story
2: Goes Beyond.' This cinematic work, slated for public debut on February 27, faces significant legal scrutiny as individuals and groups have come forward requesting a stay order. The core of these pleas revolves around apprehensions that the film's content and narrative might adversely affect the delicate balance of communal harmony within the state of Kerala. Arguments have been meticulously presented before the court, with stakeholders on all sides articulating their positions. The judicial process has seen Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas presiding over the proceedings, carefully considering the complex legal and social implications before rendering a decision, especially as the release date looms.
Petitioners' Concerns Voiced
The petitioners, including individuals like Sreedev Namboothiri and Athul Roy, have raised substantial objections concerning the film's potential to misrepresent and negatively impact the perception of Kerala. Their primary contention centers on the film's title and its promotional materials, which they argue could foster a misleading association with the state. During a promotional event held in Delhi, it was noted that 37 women were presented as victims of alleged forced religious conversions; however, the petitioners highlighted that none of these individuals were reportedly from Kerala. Furthermore, they challenged the producers' assertion that teasers and trailers are distinct from the main film, emphasizing that such preliminary content significantly shapes public opinion and therefore cannot be disregarded as inconsequential. This argument underscores the petitioners' belief that even pre-release content carries a powerful narrative weight.
Producers' Defense Presented
In response to the allegations, Vipul Amrutlal Shah, the producer of 'The Kerala Story 2' under Sunshine Pictures, submitted a formal affidavit to the court. This document highlights that the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) had granted the film its certificate after a thorough review of the entire movie. The affidavit firmly argues that there have been no documented claims of bad faith (mala fides) or any procedural flaws during the certification process, thereby rendering judicial intervention unnecessary. It further clarifies that the petition seems largely based on a brief two-minute teaser, whereas the film's full narrative encompasses characters and stories from various different states across India, not solely limited to Kerala. This crucial point aims to broaden the context beyond the limited scope presented by the petitioners' arguments.
Urgency and Judicial Caution
The producers, keenly aware of the imminent February 27 release date, have strongly advocated for an expedited decision from the court. Their submissions emphasized the logistical complexities of film distribution, including commitments for overseas screenings, making an urgent ruling imperative. However, Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas reportedly advised against rushing the court's deliberations. The judge stressed that the bench would dedicate the necessary time to meticulously examine all presented arguments and evidence before formulating and issuing its final decision. This cautious approach underscores the court's commitment to a thorough and deliberate judicial process, ensuring that all facets of the case are adequately considered before a definitive judgment is passed.
Government and Legal Stance
The Union Government has also stepped in to support the CBFC's certification of the film. Their submission to the court argued that speculative concerns regarding potential law and order issues should not be a basis for imposing a pre-release ban on a film that has already undergone and passed the official certification process. Concurrently, senior counsel S Sreekumar, representing the filmmakers, contested the very maintainability of the writ petition. He put forth the argument that the accusation of defaming Kerala lacks legal standing and is therefore not a sustainable claim in a court of law. This multifaceted defense involves both governmental support for the certification body and a direct challenge to the legal foundation of the petitioners' case.
