Kerala High Court Division Bench to Decide Fate of 'The Kerala Story 2' Ahead of Release

With the release of The Kerala Story 2 scheduled for Friday, the Kerala High Court division bench tonight reserved orders in the writ appeals challenging the interim stay granted by the single judge in the afternoon.

The division bench of Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice P.V. Balakrishnan heard arguments at length, continuing proceedings till about 9.45 pm before reserving judgment.

Senior Advocate Neeraj Kishan Kaul, appearing for the appellants, assailed the interim order on multiple grounds. He argued that the writ petition had been filed 16 days after the teaser was released, yet the single judge described it as an eleventh-hour move and proceeded to stay the film’s release. The first film, also titled The Kerala Story, was never stayed and went on to face challenge up to the Supreme Court without any restraint order, he pointed out.

Kaul submitted that the CBFC had cleared the sequel after due diligence, directing 16 cuts and replacing nearly two minutes of footage, demonstrating application of mind. Once a statutory expert body had granted certification, the court could not substitute its own view for that of the Board.

He further contended that Supreme Court precedent made it clear that when a court declines to exercise discretionary jurisdiction owing to the availability of an efficacious alternative remedy, it cannot grant interim relief. In the present case, a revision petition under Section 6(2)(c) of the Cinematography Act was already pending before the Central Government.

The senior counsel also questioned the petitioner’s locus standi. The grievance, he said, was in the nature of a public interest cause, yet the writ had been filed in a private capacity without demonstrating personal injury. He warned that if the film, slated for release in 1,500 theatres and overseas, was not allowed to screen, the producers would suffer irreparable commercial damage.

Another counsel for the appellants submitted that the interim stay was effectively final relief, which the Supreme Court has repeatedly cautioned against. Unless the CBFC certificate was set aside, the producer retained the right to exhibit the film, he argued. The Single Judge, it was contended, had relied on dialogues attributed to the villain and used expressions such as “communal harmony” to justify the restraint.

The division bench pressed the petitioner’s counsel on locus. Court observed that if the claim of reputational harm applied to every Keralite, the cause would assume a public interest character rather than a private one. It also sought clarification on the status of the revision petition filed before the Central Government.

On merits, the petitioner’s counsel contended that the CBFC had not properly applied the parameters under Section 5B of the Cinematograph Act. She submitted that the earlier film had portrayed Kerala women as radicalised without factual accuracy, and that even before the Supreme Court the makers had not asserted statistical correctness. She argued that if the sequel were released before the revision was decided, he would be left without effective relief, whereas a temporary deferment would not cause irreversible harm to the producers.

The appeals arise from the Single Judge’s interim order staying the film’s release while directing consideration of the petitioner’s representation by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting.

The division bench’s decision, now awaited, will determine whether the film can be screened as scheduled.

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

Hearing Date: February 26, 2026

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