The Kerala High Court on Tuesday sought the Centre's stand on whether a screening of the film 'Kerala Story 2: Goes Beyond' can be arranged before it decides the pleas challenging its censor certificate for allegedly depicting the state in a bad light.

After perusing portions of the film's dialogue transcript, Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas orally observed that while people in Kerala live in "total harmony", the film appeared to portray the state differently.

"Kerala lives in total harmony. But you have portrayed that this is happening all over Kerala. There is a wrong indication and it can also incite passion. That is where the censor board comes into play. Have you considered that?" the judge remarked.

The court noted that the apprehensions of people in Kerala "cannot be ignored", particularly since the state's name has been used in the film's title. "Normally, I do not interfere with any movie's artistic freedom. But you are saying that it is inspired by true events and the name Kerala is given, which can create some communal tension. I will watch the movie tomorrow. You can arrange a screening," the judge said.

The court directed the Centre to obtain instructions on whether the movie could be screened and to inform it in the post-lunch session.

Observing that the presumption arising from certification is not absolute, the court said it could be rebutted by the contents of the film itself. "In bold letters, you say 'inspired by true events', and in very microscopic letters you say the characters are fictional," the court orally observed.

One of the petitioners argued that although the title refers to Kerala, the film appears to narrate a pan-India story. "The movie makers held a meeting in Delhi where the victims of terror acts were none of them from Kerala. When questioned, they said the movie is not about Kerala and is a pan-India film. Therefore, using the name 'Kerala' in the title would be misleading," counsel submitted.

The petitioner also relied on the Supreme Court's observations in Atul Mishra v Union of India, relating to Netflix's proposed film Ghooskhor Pandit, wherein it was observed that a film title cannot denigrate an entire section of society.

The filmmakers, however, argued that certification of the film by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) raises a presumption in their favour. They further contended that the teaser content was not part of the movie.

At this juncture, the court asked whether the makers could arrange a screening, observing that if the teaser content was not part of the film, that aspect would require examination.

Another petitioner contended that ever since the release of the first Kerala Story, there has been prejudice against Malayalees. "Keralites all over the world can have a bearing. That is why the Central government itself issued notifications stating that visuals or words contemptuous of racial, religious or other groups cannot be permitted," the court remarked.

The pleas contend that the film's certification was not in accordance with the Cinematograph Act, 1952, and argue that associating alleged acts of terrorism with the name of a particular State could stigmatise the region and potentially cause communal or regional disharmony.

The matter will be taken up again at 2 pm.
(With LiveLaw inputs)