Censor certificate for Kerala Story 2, not for Vijay's Jana Nayagan; conflicting paths of 2 political films

The Kerala Story 2 has once again found itself at the centre of controversy, much like its predecessor, with protests emerging across Kerala over what many see as a misrepresentation of the state’s social fabric. At the same time, questions are being raised about how the film secured a censor certificate while Vijay’s Jana Nayagan remains caught in a legal and certification deadlock. As one film moves ahead despite the backlash and the other continues to await clearance, their contrasting trajectories have fuelled a wider debate on how censorship decisions are interpreted and applied.

Directed by Kamakhya Narayan Singh and produced by Vipul Amrutlal Shah, The Kerala Story 2 suggests that young Hindu women are lured into interfaith marriages, subsequently assaulted, stripped of their rights and forced to convert to Islam. Critics across Kerala have argued that such portrayals risk reducing the state’s complex social realities into a politically charged narrative. Yet, despite sustained criticism, the film has been granted a U/A certificate and is scheduled to release on February 27.

In contrast, Jana Nayagan has been entangled in a prolonged tussle with the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC). The film was denied certification close to its planned January 9 release, and though the makers approached the court, the legal proceedings are ongoing. The film has also not yet been reviewed by the CBFC’s revising committee.

Screenwriter Deedi Damodaran said the developments were troubling, even if not entirely unexpected. She cautioned viewers against being influenced by what she described as politically loaded narratives. “It is not surprising, but people must remain vigilant about films like The Kerala Story 2 and not be swayed by the content they present,” she told Onmanorama. She added that the larger concern lies in how such narratives could shape public perception if left unchallenged. “I can’t say I’m surprised by these developments, but they are certainly disheartening. At this point, the only way forward is to continue speaking up and raising our concerns,” she said.

She further argued that cultural production often mirrors the ideological climate of its time. “When a particular ideology dominates, cultural outputs can carry elements of propaganda. We are seeing that now, and we need to recognise it,” she said. Referring to the hurdles faced by Jana Nayagan, she suggested that systems sometimes respond quickly when content is perceived as damaging to certain images or narratives. “If authorities believe certain content could damage a particular image or narrative, they may choose to stall it. That is precisely why voicing concerns and engaging in public discussion becomes essential,” she added.

Film critic A Chandrasekhar, however, pointed out that differences in certification status do not necessarily indicate bias, but may instead stem from procedural variations. He noted that certification decisions are taken at regional centres and shaped by how officials interpret legal guidelines within specific cultural contexts. “There are established guidelines on what films can depict, including issues related to violence and political undertones. However, The Kerala Story 2 is not primarily a Malayalam regional film and was therefore not examined at the local regional office. In the same way, Jana Nayagan underwent its certification process in Chennai,” he said.

According to Chandrasekhar, while the rules remain uniform, their interpretation can vary. “The regulations are the same, but censorship ultimately depends on how officials interpret the law based on their cultural understanding. If they find something objectionable, they may withhold certification,” he explained, adding that The Kerala Story was likely cleared by a northern regional office.

He also recalled past instances to illustrate that certification is not always the final step in a film’s journey. Referring to the controversy around Empuraan, he noted that the film underwent changes even after being certified and screened, following public criticism, and was later re-released after CBFC approval for the edits. Drawing a comparison, he said The Kerala Story 2’s clearance may reflect the certifying officers’ reading of the issues involved. “We cannot automatically call it bias. Many films from Kerala and elsewhere portray people from Kashmir as terrorists. From that perspective, they too could question why their state is being misrepresented,” he said.

Legal scrutiny has added another layer to the debate surrounding The Kerala Story 2. The Kerala High Court recently issued notices to the film’s producers, the CBFC and the Union Government on a petition filed by a Kannur native seeking to quash the film’s certification. The petition argues that the CBFC failed to adequately apply safeguards under Section 5B of the Cinematograph Act, 1952, which bars certification of films that threaten public order, decency or morality, or are likely to incite offences.

Filmmaker and curator Beena Paul emphasised that the responsibility ultimately rests with the certifying authority to carefully weigh such concerns. “It is the job of the certifying authorities to ensure that film content does not create social disharmony. From the trailer, there is a feeling that this film might do that, so the onus is on them to make a considered decision. Civil society will naturally protest, but we have to wait for the CBFC’s final call,” she said.

Political reactions to the sequel have also been sharp. Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan described the film as a propaganda project of the Sangh Parivar aimed at undermining secularism in the state, echoing criticisms directed at the original The Kerala Story. The first film had claimed that thousands of women from Kerala were radicalised and recruited by ISIS, a premise that triggered strong backlash from political leaders and sections of the public. Vijayan had then termed it propaganda capable of fuelling communal tension, while opposition leader Shashi Tharoor publicly questioned the statistics used in its promotions.

The controversy surrounding the original film reached multiple courts, including the Kerala High Court, the Madras High Court and the Supreme Court of India, with petitions seeking a ban over fears of communal disharmony. While the Supreme Court declined to stay the release, it directed the makers to add a disclaimer clarifying that the narrative was fictional and not based on verified data. Promotional claims that “32,000 women” had been converted were also removed from social media platforms.

Despite sustained criticism, the first film later went on to win two National Film Awards in 2025, including Best Director for Sudipto Sen and Best Cinematography for Prasantanu Mohapatra, underscoring the complex and often contradictory reception politically sensitive films can receive within India’s film ecosystem.