Kochi: The Kerala High Court Thursday strongly objected to remarks made by petitioners against a Division Bench that had earlier lifted the stay on the release of the film Kerala Story 2: Goes Beyond.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar VM took serious exception to certain averments made in a fresh Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the movie’s release.
During the hearing, the Bench noted that the petition contained submissions questioning the manner in which another Division Bench of Justices S. A. Dharmadhikari and P. V. Balakrishnan had earlier lifted the stay on the film’s release.
“This is inconsequential for deciding the matter. You are casting an aspersion against another coordinate bench. How can you make a statement like this?” Chief Justice Sen asked the petitioners.
The court was hearing a PIL filed by K.C.Chandramohanan, a retired social science teacher and social activist, along with advocate Mehnaz P. Mohammed.
The petition challenged the screening of the film, alleging that it defamed Kerala by portraying the State as the epicentre of terrorism and radicalisation and branding it as a “terror nursery” without authentic supporting data.
According to the petitioners, the film depicted more than 150 Muslim characters through an “Islamophobic lens” and failed to portray ordinary peace-loving members of the community.
They also argued that using the title Kerala Story for what they described as a fictional multi-State narrative amounted to unconstitutional branding of Kerala and infringed the collective dignity and reputation of its citizens under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Earlier, February 26, a single-judge Bench of the High Court had stayed the film’s release after hearing another PIL against it.
However, following an urgent appeal by the filmmakers, a Division Bench comprising Justices Dharmadhikari and Balakrishnan lifted the stay February 27 after a detailed hearing, allowing the film to be released in theatres.
The final verdict on the appeal is still pending.
The fresh petition also questioned how the appeal had been mentioned and heard urgently by that Bench even before the single-judge’s stay order was uploaded on the court website.
The Chief Justice took a dim view of this contention, warning that such remarks could even invite contempt proceedings.
“You are making such statements without knowing the circumstances. If you are aggrieved, you can approach the Supreme Court, but you cannot cast aspersions on judges,” the Bench observed.
After the court raised objections, the petitioners’ counsel offered an unconditional apology and agreed to delete the controversial portions.
The Bench then permitted the petitioners to withdraw the plea and file a fresh petition without the disputed paragraphs.
