The Kerala High Court declined to entertain a Public Interest Litigation seeking to re-title the film 'The Kerala Story 2: Goes Beyond', observing that similar issues are pending before another bench.

The Kerala High Court declined to entertain a Public Interest Litigation seeking to re-title the film 'The Kerala Story 2: Goes Beyond', observing that similar issues are pending before another bench.

The Kerala High Court declined to entertain a Public Interest Litigation seeking to re-title the film 'The Kerala Story 2: Goes Beyond', observing that similar issues are pending before another bench.

Kochi: The Kerala High Court on Thursday declined to entertain a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking directions to re-title the film 'The Kerala Story 2: Goes Beyond', which was released last week, so as not to include the words "Kerala" or "Keralam".

A Division Bench of Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar V M observed that similar issues are already pending before a coordinate bench hearing appeals against the interim stay earlier granted on the film's release.

ADVERTISEMENT

Since that bench had already allowed the release of the movie, the court said that passing any order in the present PIL could dilute the earlier order. Chief Justice Sen said it would be appropriate for the bench hearing the producers' appeal to consider the present plea as well.

"One writ petition is pending and one appeal is pending. At this stage, it is not proper for us to interfere in this public interest litigation," the court observed. It added that different benches taking divergent views could lead to a conflict of opinion and advised the petitioners to approach the bench already hearing the matter.

The petitioners sought a direction to the Union Government and the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) to ensure that the film is not exhibited, broadcast, streamed or advertised under a title containing the word "Kerala" or "Keralam". They also sought a direction to the producers to change the title so that it does not stigmatise or defame the state and its people.

They also requested that the film be screened only with a disclaimer stating that the story is fictional. The disclaimer, they said, should clarify that there is no official data showing Kerala as a hub of terrorism or suggesting the enforcement of "Sharia law" across India.

ADVERTISEMENT

The petitioners further sought guidelines from the Union Government and the CBFC on the titling and marketing of films. They argued that titles and taglines should not denigrate or stereotype any State, region, caste or religious community.

However, the bench expressed displeasure after noticing certain remarks in the petition, filed through advocate Chelson Chembarathy, and questioned how such comments were included. The court criticised the petitioners and their counsel for filing the plea, following which the advocate apologised unconditionally several times.

The bench later disposed of the PIL and permitted the petitioners to file a fresh plea after removing the portions that cast aspersions on the division bench, which had allowed the film's release.

Last month, a Division Bench of Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice P V Balakrishnan permitted the release of the film by staying a single-judge order that had halted it, observing that there was no reason to stop the release of a movie already certified by the CBFC. The bench is scheduled to hear the matter again next week.

ADVERTISEMENT

Earlier, a single bench of Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas had directed the CBFC to re-examine the certification granted to the film and had stayed its release. However, while considering writ appeals filed by producer Vipul Amrutlal Shah against the order, the Division Bench stayed the single-judge ruling. Following this, the film was released in theatres on February 28. 

The film is a sequel to 'The Kerala Story', which centred on the alleged recruitment of women from Kerala by the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). The earlier film had drawn widespread criticism over its portrayal of religious radicalisation and concerns about its potential impact on the state's image.

(With LiveLaw inputs)