Top News

Kochi: On Thursday, the Kerala High Court expressed strong disapproval of comments made by petitioners regarding a Division Bench's prior decision to lift the stay on the film Kerala Story 2: Goes Beyond.

The Bench, led by Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar VM, took issue with certain statements in a new Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that contested the film's release.

During proceedings, the Bench highlighted that the petition included claims questioning the actions of another Division Bench, which had previously removed the stay on the film's release.

Chief Justice Sen remarked, "This is irrelevant to the case at hand. You are casting doubt on another bench's integrity. How can such statements be made?"

The court was addressing a PIL submitted by K.C. Chandramohanan, a retired educator and social activist, alongside advocate Mehnaz P. Mohammed.

The petition argued against the film's screening, claiming it misrepresented Kerala as a hub of terrorism and radicalization, labeling it a "terror nursery" without credible evidence.

The petitioners contended that the film portrayed over 150 Muslim characters through an "Islamophobic lens," neglecting to represent the peaceful members of the community.

They further claimed that the title Kerala Story for what they termed a fictional narrative across multiple states was an unconstitutional branding of Kerala, violating the dignity and reputation of its citizens as per Article 21 of the Constitution.

Previously, on February 26, a single-judge Bench had imposed a stay on the film's release after considering another PIL against it.

However, following an urgent appeal from the filmmakers, a Division Bench consisting of Justices Dharmadhikari and Balakrishnan lifted the stay on February 27 after a thorough hearing, allowing the film to be shown in theaters.

The final decision regarding the appeal is still awaited.

The new petition also raised questions about how the appeal was addressed urgently by that Bench before the single-judge's stay order was made available on the court's website.

The Chief Justice viewed this assertion unfavorably, cautioning that such remarks could lead to contempt proceedings.

"You are making these claims without understanding the context. If you feel wronged, you may approach the Supreme Court, but you cannot impugn the judges' integrity," the Bench stated.

Following the court's objections, the petitioners' lawyer offered an unconditional apology and consented to remove the contentious sections.

The Bench subsequently allowed the petitioners to withdraw their plea and submit a new petition excluding the disputed content.