The Kerala Story 2: Kerala High Court Lifts Stay, Clears Film’s Release

The Kerala High Court division bench on Friday stayed the interim order of the single judge that had stayed the release of The Kerala Story 2 for 15 days, clearing the way for the film’s scheduled release today.

The division bench comprising Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice P.V. Balakrishnan passed the order after hearing the matter at length through the evening yesterday.

On Thursday, the single judge bench of Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas, in the writ petitions filed by Sreedev Namboodiri and Freddy V. Francis, directed that the film’s release be stayed for 15 days until the petitioners were heard by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting on their pending representation.

The single judge observed that artistic freedom could not extend to damaging the reputation of a state and its people, and noted that repeated portrayal in a sequel of similar name and concept could have a tendency to foster communal disharmony. The single judge also recorded apprehensions that the film could project Kerala, otherwise known for communal harmony, in a negative light globally.

However, shortly after the interim direction was dictated in the court, counsel for the CBFC objected, citing Supreme Court precedent to contend that once a court declines to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction on account of an efficacious alternative remedy, it cannot grant interim relief. However, even after taking into account the objections, the single judge passed a detailed order and decided to stay the film’s release. He posted the matter for further hearing on March 12, 2026. 

Soon thereafter, the film’s producer, Vipul Amrutlal Shah, approached a division bench challenging the single judge’s decision.

When the appeal by Shah was taken up by the division bench, Senior Advocate Neeraj Kishan Kaul, appearing for him, mounted a strong challenge to the interim stay. He argued that the writ petition had been filed 16 days after the teaser was released, yet was described as an eleventh-hour plea. The first film, also titled The Kerala Story, had faced challenges up to the Supreme Court without any stay on its release, he submitted.

Kaul contended that the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) had applied its mind before granting certification to the sequel, pointing out that 16 cuts were directed and nearly two minutes of footage replaced.

The Board, he argued, is an expert statutory body and its decision cannot be substituted by the court’s subjective assessment. He further submitted that a revision petition under Section 6(2)(c) of the Cinematograph Act was already pending before the Central Government, and that the Supreme Court judgment in Mangal Rajendra Kamthe v. Tahsildar, Purandhar & Ors. (2026 INSC 185) makes it clear that where an efficacious alternative remedy exists, interim relief of this nature should not be granted.

The division bench repeatedly questioned the locus standi of the petitioner. Justice Dharmadhikari asked how an individual’s personal legal rights were directly affected by the film, observing that if the grievance applied to every Keralite, it assumed the character of a public interest cause rather than a private injury. “Show us how your personal rights are affected,” the bench said.

Counsel for the petitioner, Advocate Maitreyi Sachidananda Hegde, responded that as a Keralite, her client's reputation was intertwined with that of the community and the state. She invoked Article 21, contending that the right to reputation extended to collective identity. She further argued that the earlier film had portrayed Kerala women as radicalised without factual basis, and that even before the Supreme Court, the makers had not claimed statistical accuracy. A wrong done once, she submitted, could not justify repetition.

On the issue of urgency, the producers stressed the severe commercial consequences of a stay. The film was slated for release in around 1,500 theatres and had already been distributed overseas. An interim restraint, they argued, would effectively grant final relief to the petitioners and cause irreparable financial damage. “If the film is not released, the petitioners achieve what they want,” senior counsel submitted.

The petitioner’s counsel countered that if the film were released before the revision petition was decided, the petitioner would be left without effective remedy, whereas a temporary deferment would not irreversibly harm the producers. Another counsel for the petitioner also pointed out that the petitioner's locus had not been challenged before the single judge and could not be raised for the first time in appeal.

The division bench also examined the single judge’s reasoning, including reliance on certain dialogues and concerns about communal harmony. The appellants argued that the court could not sit in appeal over the CBFC’s assessment, particularly when the certificate had not been set aside.

After hearing arguments through the evening, the division bench set aside the single Jjudge’s interim stay, holding that such relief could not be sustained in the circumstances.

The decision clears the path for the film’s theatrical release tomorrow. 

Case Title: Vipul Amrutlal Shah vs Freddy V Francis and connected matter

Order Date: February 27, 2026

Bench: Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice P.V. Balakrishnan