On February 27, the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court, comprising Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice P V Balakrishnan, stayed a Single Judge’s interim order that had halted the release of the film The Kerala Story 2: Goes Beyond for 15 days.
The Single Judge had relied on excerpts from the film’s teaser to conclude that the content had the prima facie potential to disturb communal harmony and that the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) may not have adequately applied its mind under Section 5B of the Cinematograph Act, 1952. However, the appellate Bench emphasized a critical constitutional principle: once the CBFC, a statutory expert body, has granted certification after viewing the film in its entirety, courts must ordinarily presume due application of mind.
In arriving at this conclusion, the Bench drew heavily from two landmark Supreme Court precedents. First, in Prakash Jha Productions v. Union of India, decided in 2011 in the context of the film Aarakshan, the Supreme Court held that once a film has been certified by the CBFC, States cannot suspend or prohibit its exhibition merely on apprehensions of law and order problems. The Court made it clear that maintaining public order is the responsibility of the State, not a ground to curtail certified expression.
Second, the Bench relied on Viacom18 Media Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, the 2018 judgment concerning the film Padmaavat. In that case, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that creative content is protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. Once certification is granted, there exists a presumption that statutory guidelines, including those relating to public order and communal harmony, have been duly considered. States cannot pre-emptively block exhibition on speculative grounds.
The Kerala High Court noted that the petitioners had not viewed the film in full and were relying solely on teaser clippings. It further observed that the producer had incorporated modifications directed by the CBFC, reinforcing the inference of due scrutiny. Therefore, merely on the basis of selective excerpts, the finding of non-application of mind could not be sustained.
In Viacom18 Media Private Limited and others v. Union of India and others [(2018) 1 SCC 761], the Supreme Court of India stayed state-imposed bans (Gujarat, Rajasthan, etc.) on the film Padmaavat upholding freedom of expression. The court ruled that states cannot prohibit a film already certified by the CBFC, as maintaining law and order is a state responsibility, not a ground to curtail film exhibition.
Meanwhile, M/S Prakash Jha Productions & Anr vs Union Of India & Ors (2011) 8 SCC 372 is a landmark Supreme Court case affirming that state governments cannot ban films already certified by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC). The court held that once cleared, a film’s screening cannot be halted due to hypothetical public unrest, reinforcing freedom of speech.
Also Read: Kerala HC Division Bench lifts stay on The Kerala Story 2: Goes Beyond
