Kerala High Court Stays Release of ‘The Kerala Story 2’; Cites Prima Facie Risk to Public Order

The Kerala High Court today stayed the release of the film “The Kerala Story 2 - Goes Beyond” for fifteen days and directed the Union Government to decide a pending revision petition against its certification within two weeks.

The movie is a sequel to the 2023 film The Kerala Story, which followed the story of a young Hindu woman from Kerala who was allegedly lured into religious conversion through a romantic relationship, later radicalised and recruited into the terrorist organisation ISIS, and taken to a conflict zone in West Asia.

Today, Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas admitted two writ petitions, filed by Sreedev Namboodiri and Freddy V. Francis, respectively, challenging the certification granted by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) to the sequel, observing that there were prima facie concerns regarding whether statutory guidelines under Section 5B of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 had been duly considered.

Section 5B of the Cinematograph Act, 1952, defines the principles for certifying films in India, prohibiting the public exhibition of films that threaten sovereignty, security of the state, friendly relations with foreign states, public order, decency, or morality.

The film was scheduled for release on February 27, 2026.

Maintainability of Petitions and Locus Standi: Not a PIL, Court Says

At the outset, the CBFC and the producer questioned the maintainability of the petitions, contending that they were in the nature of public interest litigation and that the petitioners lacked locus standi. 

Rejecting this objection, Justice Thomas held that both petitioners had pleaded specific and personal injury. Sreedev Namboodiri claimed that the portrayal of Kerala in the earlier film had led to stereotyping and stigma affecting his regional identity. Freddy V. Francis, who works in Spain, asserted that he had faced racial profiling due to the narrative propagated in the prequel.

Court observed that the right to reputation is a fundamental right and that the grievance raised was personal and direct. Since the petitioners had pleaded legal injury affecting them individually, the writ petitions were maintainable and could not be dismissed as PILs.

Challenge to Certification and Reliefs Sought 

The petitioners challenged the CBFC’s grant of UA 16+ certification and sought reconsideration of the film under Section 5B. Francis additionally sought modification of the title to a neutral name, removal of references portraying Kerala as indulging in romantic forceful conversions, and deletion of the tagline “Inspired by true events,” replacing it with a disclaimer stating that the film is purely fictional and unsupported by government data.

The petitioners argued that the sequel repeats the narrative of the prequel, which had earlier projected 32,000 conversions and later added a disclaimer before the Supreme Court stating that no authentic data supported the figure.

According to the petitioners, the teaser contained visuals and dialogues capable of promoting communal disharmony, inciting mobilisation, and threatening law and order. They contended that the certification was granted without proper application of mind to statutory guidelines.

CBFC’s Defence: Due Diligence and Limited Scope of Review

The CBFC maintained that the film was examined in compliance with Section 5B guidelines and that certification was granted after due diligence, with certain modifications and excisions.

It argued that the teaser and trailer circulating on social media were not certified and did not fall within the scope of the Act. Since the film had not yet been released, the challenge was premature.

The CBFC further submitted that the film, though inspired by true events, is a fictionalised and dramatised account addressing exploitation and radicalisation of women, and does not denigrate any community.

Producer’s Defence

The producer argued that judicial review is limited to examining jurisdictional errors or manifest illegality and that courts cannot substitute their assessment for that of the expert body. An interim restraint at the eleventh hour would cause irreversible economic harm and prejudice third-party rights, it was submitted.

Contested Content and Government Concession

Although court did not view the entire film, it recorded that the Union Government conceded that certain screenshots relied upon by the petitioners form part of the movie and had not been subjected to excision.

The material included:

– The epigraph “Inspired by true events”

– The dialogue “Our mission is to convert Hindu girls”

– The title “Kerala Story 2 - Goes Beyond” accompanied by the inscription “And Sharia law will be enforced across all of India”

These admissions became central to the court’s prima facie assessment.

Court’s Offer to Watch the Film

Court recorded that despite the urgency and shortage of time, it had offered to watch the movie in order to appreciate the allegations in light of the actual depiction. However, the producers evaded the offer.

Court clarified that it cannot substitute its views for that of the regulatory authority. Nevertheless, it observed that when the very content of the teaser, conceded to be part of the film, prima facie has the potential to distort public perception and disturb communal harmony, the matter cannot be ignored. The bench held that such content squarely falls within the grounds enumerated under Section 5B(1), including public order, decency and morality.

It further observed that a comprehensive assessment of the film may be necessary to examine sensitive thematic content, particularly its treatment of interfaith dynamics and visual presentation.

Cinema’s Potential for Harm: Reliance on Rangarajan

Justice Thomas relied extensively on the Supreme Court’s judgment in S. Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram, which recognised the unique power of cinema to influence public attitudes and its “potential for evil as it has for good”.

Court emphasised that films are not comparable to newspapers or magazines and may justify prior restraint where statutory grounds are attracted. It noted that continual exposure to similar narratives can cumulatively alter perceptions.

Applying this reasoning, court observed that the sequel must be examined in the context of the earlier film.

"The repeated portrayal of the theme in a second movie almost of the same name and concept, as evident from the admitted scenes in the sequel movie, can have a tendency to create contempt for a religious group in the State and to the State itself, tend to promote communal and even fanatical attitudes and even endanger public order," Justice Thomas opined. 

Prima Facie Non-Application of Section 5B Guidelines

Court referred to guidelines framed under Section 5B requiring that films must not contain visuals or words contemptuous of religious groups, must not promote communal attitudes, and must not endanger public order.

Prima facie, court observed that these guidelines did not appear to have been borne in mind while granting certification. It recorded a “manifest disregard of the applicable law” in the circumstances. 

While acknowledging that courts must be slow to interfere with film releases at the eleventh hour, the bench held that where prima facie material indicates absence of application of mind and possible communal disharmony, judicial intervention is warranted.

Revision Petition and Alternative Remedy

A revision petition under Section 6 of the Act had already been filed before the Central Government. The producer relied on recent Supreme Court ruling in Mangal Rajendra Kamthe v. Tahsildar, Purandhar & Ors. (2026 INSC 185) to argue that interim relief cannot be granted when an alternative remedy exists.

The high court distinguished that decision, noting that it had admitted the writ petitions and issued directions in peculiar circumstances. It held that if interim protection were not granted, any challenge to certification could be defeated by releasing the film before revision is decided, which would undermine the rule of law.

Operative Directions

Court directed the Union Government to consider and decide the pending revision petition within two weeks after granting an opportunity of hearing to all parties.

In the meantime, it imposed an interim stay on the release of “The Kerala Story 2 - Goes Beyond” and directed that the film shall not be released for public viewership for fifteen days.

The matter is posted for further consideration on March 12, 2026.

The Kerala Story and controversies:

In 2023, the original The Kerala Story also became the subject of extensive legal and political dispute before and after its release. The Supreme Court refused to stay the film’s release ahead of its theatrical opening, observing that certified films should not be restrained without compelling reasons and that audience reception should determine its success.

Soon after its release in May 2023, the West Bengal government banned the film, citing law and order concerns, prompting the makers to move the Supreme Court. The apex court set aside the ban, finding no justification for prohibiting a certified film that was playing elsewhere in the country.

Case Title: Freddy V. Francis vs. UOI and Others with Connected Matters

Order Date: February 26, 2026

Bench: Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas