Published Feb 27, 2026 | 8:29 PM ⚊ Updated Feb 27, 2026 | 8:29 PM
Kerala High Court. (iStock)
Synopsis: In its interim order, the Bench noted that it was undisputed that the Central Board of Film Certification had viewed the movie in its entirety before issuing certification. The court held that certification carries with it a presumption that the statutory authority has applied its mind to the guidelines under Section 5B of the Cinematograph Act, 1952, including concerns relating to public order.
A Division Bench of the Kerala High Court comprising Justices Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and P. V. Balakrishnan on Friday, 27 February, has stayed the order of a single judge that had halted the release of a controversial film Kerala Story 2, observing that once the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) has granted certification, a prima facie presumption arises that due process has been followed.
In its interim order, the Bench noted that it was undisputed that the Central Board of Film Certification had viewed the movie in its entirety before issuing certification. The court held that certification carries with it a presumption that the statutory authority has applied its mind to the guidelines under Section 5B of the Cinematograph Act, 1952, including concerns relating to public order.
The Division Bench relied on the Supreme Court’s decisions in Viacom 18 Media Private Limited and others v. Union of India and others and Atul Mishra v. Union of India and others, observing that once a certificate is issued, it must be presumed that the competent authority has assessed the film as a whole and considered its overall impact.
If law and order issues arise upon release, it is the responsibility of the state to maintain public order, the court noted.
The Bench further observed that the single judge had arrived at a finding that certification guidelines were not adhered to, without viewing the entire film and relying primarily on a few clippings.
“Merely on the basis of a few clippings and without viewing the movie, the finding of the learned Single Judge that the guidelines for certification have not been borne in mind by the CBFC while granting certification, cannot be countenanced,” the order stated.
It also recorded that the filmmakers had carried out insertions, excisions and modifications as directed by the CBFC, which, according to the court, reinforced the conclusion that there was due application of mind by the certifying authority.
The Division Bench noted that the writ petitioners themselves had not watched the film in full and were relying on the teaser to substantiate their allegations.
Earlier, Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas had stayed the film’s release after examining the teaser.
The single judge had held that the teaser disclosed prima facie material indicating a potential to distort public perception and disturb communal harmony.
The court had also observed a prima facie absence of proper application of mind by the CBFC while granting certification and flagged the possibility of communal disharmony or denigration of a community depicted in the film.
With the Division Bench now staying that order, the embargo on the film’s release stands lifted, clearing the way for its screening pending further consideration of the matter. The film was scheduled to release on Friday, 27 February.
(Edited by Sumavarsha, with inputs from Dileep V Kumar)
