On February 26, a single bench of the Kerala High Court stayed the release of the controversial Kerala Story 2. In its order, the court observed that even the teaser—admittedly part of the film—prima facie had the potential to distort public perception and disturb communal harmony. It added that Kerala could be portrayed to viewers across the world as a hub of fanaticism and communal division.
Notably, a key argument of the petitioners who challenged the film’s name was that, subsequent to the release of the prequel The Kerala Story, there were reported incidents of unrest and general ill-will towards Kerala and Keralites, both in India and abroad.
Incidentally, as the High Court was considering the case, a popular Malayali travel vlogger named Sujith Bhakthan posted an online rant from Fiji after seeing the film’s poster in a local theatre in that archipelago. His anger was directed at the Kerala government. “It’s a global defamation campaign against Kerala. The film is deliberately made to defame Kerala on a world level,” he said in his video, before asking what the Kerala government was doing to prevent this shaming.
In fact, it did nothing substantial. And, makers of Kerala Story 2 filed an appeal before the Kerala High Court and subsequently obtained a favourable verdict today.
The Division Bench heard the film crew’s appeal in an urgent sitting on the evening of February 26, where senior counsel representing the filmmakers argued that the film does not denigrate the state of Kerala in any manner. The Bench also questioned the maintainability of the writ petition and the locus standi of the petitioner, Freddy V. Francis, a content creator from Kerala. Counsel for Francis submitted that the petitioner is a Keralite. The court then asked whether the matter was, in effect, a public interest litigation and observed that the manner in which the petition was framed resembled a PIL. And the petitioner’s counsel had to clarify it was a personal grievance affecting the right to reputation as a Keralite, not a pure PIL.
The Division Bench subsequently stayed the single bench order and allowed the film to be released worldwide in over 1,500 theatres.
A private individual like Francis does not represent the State of Kerala or its entire population; the legislature and executive do. This raises the question of why the Kerala government has not joined the case as a petitioner or filed a separate case against a film that the Kerala chief minister himself has described as “defaming” Kerala.
No doubt that freedom of expression must be upheld, and every filmmaker—whether propagandist or not—should be allowed to release a film. There must also be the freedom to call out propaganda films and malicious campaigns. Nevertheless, freedom of expression is not unlimited in India. The Constitution empowers the state to impose “reasonable restrictions” on this freedom through law on specific grounds, one of which is the sovereignty and integrity of India. Since India is a union of states, this arguably extends to the integrity of individual states.
The Kerala government spends taxpayers’ money on building the “Brand Kerala” image to attract investment worldwide. Moreover, tourism is a crucial sector in the state’s economy. In its latest budget, Kerala earmarked Rs 85 crore for tourism promotion to attract visitors from across the world. And that is when a film that allegedly associates Kerala with radicalisation and Islamist terror through its title and content is getting a worldwide release—even in countries where the Kerala government could not spend money for tourism promotion—and the Kerala government is not acting legally.
“When the government is spending crores of public money in branding Kerala, and reputational damage is being caused, it cannot remain a mute spectator,” said advocate Harish Vasudevan, who practices at the Kerala High Court. He added that the government should ideally file both criminal and civil suits for the damage allegedly caused to the Kerala brand and its people by the controversial franchise.
Kerala Story, the first installation of the franchise, reportedly collected over Rs 300 crore worldwide. Kerala Story 2, with its wide international release and the controversy that has aided its promotion, is also expected to perform strongly at the box office.
Observers such as Vasudevan suggest that Kerala could have claimed damages even after the first film but added that there is a risk element to a legal move by the state government at this stage. “Maybe they feel that if such action is pursued and there is a backlash from the court, during an election period it could hurt the government,” he said.