Kochi | The producer of 'The Kerala Story 2-Goes Beyond' has told the Kerala High Court that the pleas opposing the film’s release are “premature, misconceived and not maintainable”.
The submission was made by the film’s producer, Vipul Amrutlal Shah, in an affidavit filed before the court on Tuesday.
Opposing the petitions, the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) on Wednesday said an alternative statutory remedy of seeking revision was available to the petitioners.
It also told the court that the pleas ought to have been filed as public interest litigations, which are heard by a division bench.
The petitioners contended that the film aims to tarnish the image of Kerala and harm the reputation of its people.
They further alleged that the teaser and trailer were misleading and depicted on social media content that cannot be shown in theatres.
“They (producers) are doing indirectly, through the teaser and trailer, what they cannot do directly,” advocate Maitreyi Sachidananda Hegde, appearing for one of the petitioners, Sreedev Namboodiri, told the court.
After hearing arguments for over an hour and a half, Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas said the matter would be taken up again on Thursday and orally asked the producers not to render the proceedings infructuous, noting that the petitioners’ apprehensions “were probably genuine”.
The court observed that a revision can be sought only after watching the film, by which time it may become redundant.
“The damage may already be done by then,” it said.
Justice Thomas said the matter would be heard again on Thursday at 9.45 am.
During the hearing, the court said it cannot pass orders regarding the teaser and trailer, as no specific relief has been sought in that regard.
It also observed that there is nothing objectionable about the film’s title by itself, unless it is linked to the content shown in the teaser and trailer.
In his affidavit, Shah contended that the CBFC is the sole expert authority under the Cinematograph Act, 1952, to examine films in their entirety and certify them for public exhibition.
“The supervisory jurisdiction of this court does not extend to substituting its own assessment of a film’s content for the expert judgment of the certifying authority,” he said.
He denied the allegations in the pleas and termed them “an abuse and misuse of the process of law”.
Referring to the plea filed by Namboodiri, Shah alleged that it was filed “with a malafide intention and an ulterior motive to gain financial benefits”.
He also said the teaser was released 16 days before the filing of the plea.
He argued that the exhibition of a certified film cannot be restrained based solely on a two-minute teaser, without examining the complete film.
He further said that granting prior restraint without examining the full film, without any prima facie finding of illegality in the CBFC’s decision, and based only on a teaser, would cause “catastrophic and irreversible economic harm” to the producer, exhibitors and distribution partners.
“The film is slated for release in over 1,800 theatres across India and overseas,” Shah said.
On the title, he said the qualifier “Goes Beyond” was “not decorative”.
“It is a deliberate and conspicuous textual signal… that the film’s narrative extends beyond the geography of Kerala.
“The definite article ‘The’ refers to the first film in the franchise and does not restrict the subject matter to Kerala alone,” the affidavit said.
He also argued that if there is apprehension of protests or law-and-order issues, it is for the state to address them and not a ground to halt the release of a film.
“A scenario where any individual or group can effectively veto the exhibition of a certified film by threatening disorder would render meaningless both the CBFC certification process and the constitutional guarantee of free expression,” the affidavit stated.
The court had on Tuesday orally observed that the teaser and trailer depict Kerala, a state known for communal harmony, in a negative light.
It also noted that using the state’s name and claiming the film is based on facts could lead to communal tensions.
Three separate pleas have sought to quash the CBFC certificate granted to the film, which is scheduled for release on February 27.
Besides quashing the certification, Namboodiri’s plea also seeks modifications, including reconsideration of the film’s title.
The petitioner has alleged that the film was certified without due compliance with the statutory requirements under the Cinematograph Act, 1952.
