Published Feb 26, 2026 | 4:10 PM ⚊ Updated Feb 26, 2026 | 5:18 PM
A poster of Kerala Story 2.
Synopsis: According to Bar and Bench, the Court opined that prima facie there was an absence of application of mind by the CBFC while granting certification. It, therefore, directed the CBFC to consider the revision petitions filed by the petitioners before the board within a period of two weeks. Until the CBFC passes fresh orders, the Court ordered that the movie shall not be released.
The Kerala High Court, on Thursday, 26 February, ordered an interim halt to the release of The Kerala Story 2: Goes Beyond, observing that the Central Board of Film Certification appeared to have cleared the film without proper application of mind.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas issued the stay while hearing two petitions opposing the movies release, which was scheduled for Friday, 27 February.
The petitions submitted by Sreedev Namboothiri, a native of Chittariparamba in Kannur district and Freddy V Francis from Kochi, had sought a stay on the film’s release and cancellation of its certification over concerns that it may cause communal rife.
Freddy V Francis objected to the use of Kerala in the title, arguing that it wrongly links the state with terrorism and forced religious conversion even though the story involves characters from other states.
Speaking to South First, Freddy said the film’s promotion amounted to marketing of hate and that its claim of being based on true events must be questioned. He added that hate-driven politics cannot be tolerated.
Another petition was filed by Kannur native Sreedev Namboodiri, who said the film’s title and promotional content, including the teaser and trailer, could incite violence and stigmatise Kerala.
He objected to the teaser line ‘ab sahenge nahin… ladenge’ (we will not tolerate it anymore, but will fight), calling it a call for confrontation. He also challenged the CBFC certification alleging the board failed to assess the film’s impact on public order, decency and morality under the Cinematograph Act.
A third petition by adv Athul Roy questioning the title and certification was dismissed, while the court passed interim orders on the petitions filed by Francis and Namboodiri.
According to Bar and Bench, the Court opined that prima facie there was an absence of application of mind by the CBFC while granting certification. It, therefore, directed the CBFC to consider the revision petitions filed by the petitioners before the board within a period of two weeks. Until the CBFC passes fresh orders, the Court ordered that the movie shall not be released.
The court also noted that CBFC may not have followed guidelines meant to prevent disturbance to social harmony.
According to Livelaw, Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas in his order said, “…the very content in the teaser itself, which is conceded to be part of the movie, has the prima facie potential to distort the public perception and disturb communal harmony…”
The verdict further read: ” Dissemination of content which has a tendency to create discord, disturb law and order, even undermine social harmony cannot come within the gamut of freedom of speech and expression enshrined in Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India”
In an earlier hearing, Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas said the court would first ascertain whether the movie contains material capable of provoking communal tension, particularly since the film uses “Kerala” in its title and claims to be inspired by true events. Observing that people in the state live in harmony, the judge orally remarked that any portrayal suggesting otherwise could not be lightly brushed aside.
The judge further said, “Kerala is so secular. It lives with total harmony but have you considered this when something is portrayed as happening all over the state? There is a wrong indication and can even incite passion and that is when the censor board (CBFC) comes in picture.”
“Apprehensions of people in Kerala cannot be ignored because you have given the name Kerala. Normally, I do not interfere with any movie because it is a creation of an art but then you say it is inspired by true events and named it Kerala, which can create some communal tension”, Justice Thomas said.
The petitioners had earlier cited the Supreme Court’s recent observations in Atul Mishra v. Union of India concerning the proposed film Ghooskhor Pandit, where the title was altered after concerns that it denigrated a community.
(Edited by Sumavarsha, with inputs from Sreelakshmi Soman)
