- Kerala High Court lifted stay on The Kerala Story 2, allowing its release after 15-day pause
- Three films faced legal scrutiny recently for allegedly hurting sentiments before release
- South star Vijay's Jana Nayagan remains uncertified by CBFC, delaying its release
In a dramatic turn of events, the Kerala High Court threw open its doors for a rare special evening sitting at 7:30 PM on Thursday - the courtroom lights burning late to decide the fate of the controversial film The Kerala Story 2.
The hearing came hours after a single-judge bench paused its release just a day before its scheduled release for 15-days.
On appeal by the makers, a division bench was swiftly constituted. In less than 24 hours, the double-judge bench lifted the stay and cleared the path for the film's release.
This was not an isolated flashpoint. In the span of just two weeks, three films - Ghooskhor Pandat, Kerala Story 2, and Yadav Ji ki Love Story - found themselves at the centre of public outrage and legal scrutiny, accused of hurting sentiments even before audiences had a chance to watch them.
On the other hand, nearly two months after its due date of release, South's Superstar Vijay's Jana Nayagan has been entangled in a prolonged tussle with the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC), despite petitions by Filmmakers till the top court.
Cinema has long been a powerful vehicle of expression - provocative, political, and deeply personal. But when storytelling collides with public sentiment, morality, or law, who decides whether a film should roll, be censored, or be cancelled?
While it is the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) that is responsible for the certification, objections are often raised in court.
CBFC functions in accordance with the Cinematograph Act, 1952, and the Cinematograph (Certification) Rules, 2024. The stipulated time limit for the certification of films is 48 working days. While in past, courts have cleared the path of release for several movies, Jana Nayagan faces a hurdle as it is yet to receive a nod from CBFC.
As courtrooms become the first theatre where the fate of films is decided, here's a look at past defining instances which have shaped and changed how courts have been balancing the Freedom of expression with sensitivity of society:
A History Of Decisive Past Precedents
In 1994, the Supreme Court drew a decisive line for interference by courts when it upheld the exhibition certificate granted to the film Bandit Queen.
Om Pal Singh Hoon, President of the Gujjar Gaurav Sansthan, challenged the certificate before the Delhi High Court, alleging that the film's depiction of the rape of Phoolan Devi by the character "Babu Gujjar" portrayed the Gujjar community as morally depraved and violated his fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19, and 21.
Delhi HC quashed the certificate and ordered reconsideration with modifications. However, the Supreme Court reversed the High Court's ruling, holding that freedom of expression under Article 19(1)(a) can only be restricted within the limits of Article 19(2), that films must be judged as a whole, and that depiction of social evils cannot be censored merely because they portray disturbing realities. The Top Court restored the 'A' certificate granted by the competent authority, emphasising protection of artistic and creative freedom.
In 2011, giving a go-ahead for the screening of Amitabh Bachchan starrer Aarakshan, the Supreme Court quashed the ban imposed by the state of Uttar Pradesh, saying public discussion and dissent are necessary in a vibrant democracy.
A bench of Justice Mukundakam Sharma and Justice AR Dave lifted the two-month ban on the film in UP and held that once a film has been certified by the CBFC, States cannot suspend or prohibit its exhibition merely on apprehensions of law-and-order problems.
In 2018, the Supreme Court directed four states to lift the ban on Sanjay Leela Bhansali's film "Padmawat", noting that the movie is duly certified by CBFC and comes with a disclaimer as well.
Hearing a petition from the producers and the director of the film which was banned by BJP-ruled states of Rajasthan, Gujarat, MP and Chhattisgarh, the bench of CJI Dipak Misra, Justices A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud reminded the governments of their constitutional obligation to protect right to free speech and expression by controlling law and order problems that could arise because of opposition to screening of the film by fringe groups. The bench needed very less convincing from lawyers, as it granted an interim relief to makers in the very first instance.
"If the film 'Bandit Queen' can pass the test of the SC, why not 'Padmaavat'? Whether a film is a box office bomb or a flop, whether distributors buy the film or not, we are not concerned. When the right to freedom of speech and expression, which is inseparable from making a film or enacting street theatre, is guillotined, my constitutional concern gets aroused. Artistic and creative expressions must be protected," Justice Mishra said.
"Fissures In Society", A Changing Trend
While upholding the release of Kerala Story 2, the high court on Thursday has cited the landmark verdicts from the top court on Padmawat and Aarakshan. But not every movie is dealt with the same hand.
Recent trends suggest a more in-depth scrutiny by courts while adjudicating upon the Silver-screen.
Last year, the Delhi High Court held an extensive hearing for the release of the controversial movie Udaipur Files, which was publicised to be based on the murder of tailor Kanhaiya Lal in Rajasthan over a post against Prophet Mohammad.
It even directed a special screening for advocates on both sides before the movies is allowed to be released.
After much back and forth between the Supreme Court and the Delhi High Court, the film was sent to be re-examined by the Central committee. It was allowed to be released with 6 cuts, weeks after its scheduled date.
Supreme Court lawyer Akanksha Rai, who appeared for petitioners challenging the release of Udaipur Files, told NDTV that sending a subtle message through storytelling is one thing that's part of creative expression. But openly vilifying an entire community or religion crosses a line.
"Art can question, critique, and challenge ideas, but it should never promote hatred or division," she added.
Rai said that this particularly casts a greater responsibility on the creator when working on a non-fictional topic as he cannot brush it off his shoulder by claiming it as creative expression when his work is crossing its periphery and directly meddling with the social fabric which is a subject of state machinery.
"Interference of state or Judicial machinery in such cases is necessary," Rai said.
The recent order from the Supreme Court on the Netflix film 'Ghooskhor Pandit' adds another dimension on court's role on these very lines.
Bench or Justices BV Nagarathana and Ujjal Bhuyan directed the filmmakers not release the movie till the title is changed.
Despite an earlier undertaking by filmmakers in the Delhi High Court that they have withdrawn the controversial title and promotional material, the top court felt it was necessary to make the director Neeraj Pandey file another affidavit clarifying that the title will be changed and the movie does not show any one community as "corrupt".
"The film does not portray any caste, religion, community, or sect as corrupt. There was no intention to demean any religion, caste, or community." The court took this submission by the maker on record to close the case. The film's new release date is still awaited.
During the hearing, Justice BV Nagarathana asked the filmmakers: "There are already fissures in society. Why should you denigrate anybody?"
Emphasising the importance of "fraternity", the Supreme Court held that it is constitutionally impermissible for anybody, be it the State or non-state actors, through any medium, such as speeches, memes, cartoons, visual arts, etc, to vilify and denigrate any community.
"It will be violative of the Constitution to target any particular community on the basis of religion, language, caste or region by whosoever he or she may be, the court said.