Board's Focus Was On Whether Film Will Ruffle Few Oversensitive Feathers: Kerala High Court Sets Aside CBFC's Order For Cuts To Movie ‘HAAL’

The Kerala High Court has quashed the order of the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) by which it permitted only restricted public exhibition with ‘A’ certificate to the movie ‘HAAL’, subject to certain excisions.

The film’s producer namely Juby Thomas and director namely Veera @ Muhammed Rafeek had approached the Court via Writ Petition, seeking appropriate reliefs.

A Single Bench of Justice V.G. Arun observed, “… the standard to be applied by the Board or the courts for judging the film should be that of an ordinary man of commonsense and prudence and not that of an out of the ordinary or hypersensitive man. In the case at hand it is clear that, instead of judging the film as would be done by an ordinary prudent person, the Board's focus was on whether the film will ruffle a few oversensitive feathers.”

The Bench emphasised that the regulatory power of the State to impose reasonable restrictions on the fundamental right to free speech and expression can only be in the interest of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with Foreign States, public order, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of Court, defamation or incitement to an offence.

Advocates Joseph Kodianthara and Saneeje S appeared for the Petitioners, while Additional Solicitor General (ASG)/Senior Advocate A.R.L. Sundaresan, Senior Advocate P. Sreekumar, CGC A. Rajagopalan, Advocates S. Anil Kumar, and Shinu J. Pillai appeared for the Respondents.

Factual Background

The Petitioners were aggrieved by the decision of the CBFC, acting upon the recommendations of its Revising Committee and granting only restricted permission for exhibition of the film ‘HAAL’ under ‘A’ Category, with excisions and modifications. The said film is about the romantic relationship between two youngsters, a Muslim boy and a Christian girl, who face a lot of opposition from their families and respective religious communities against their union. The boy’s family demands that the girl convert to Islam, while the boy himself opposes the demand.

On the other hand, the girl, out of her deep love for the boy, initially relents, but retracts at the last moment, finding it difficult to renounce her religion, and give up on her daily prayers. Finally, after some dramatic moments, the boy and girl overcome all obstacles and succeed in convincing their families that love has no religion and it is possible for them to follow their individual religious beliefs even after marriage. This is accepted by the religious leaders of both communities and the film comes to a happy end.

Contentions

The senior counsel for the Petitioners contended that merely because the movie portrays the trials and tribulations of two young lovers from two different religions, the boy from the Muslim community and the girl from the Christian community, the censors cannot jump to the conclusion that the film is entitled only for ‘A; certification, since the narrative of the film deals with socio-cultural dynamics and involves religious sensitivities.

Whereas, the ASG for the Respondents submitted that the film HAAL was granted ‘A’ certificate due to its mature and complex character arcs with socio-cultural dynamics and religious sensitivities. It was further submitted that the Revising Committee consisting of two subject experts had observed that the film misrepresents inter-faith relationships - commonly referred to as “Love Jihad” - and portrays legitimate warnings from Hindu and Christian leaders as unfounded or intolerant.

Reasoning

The High Court after hearing the arguments from both sides, noted, “No doubt, as contended by the learned counsel for the respondents, this Court will not be justified in interfering with the decision of the Board unless the decision is found to be so perverse that no person of reasonable prudence can arrive at such a conclusion. It is also true that the movies have more impact on society than other medias and therefore, a check on overplay is essential.”

“… the competent authority can certify the films differently and even refuse permission for release. But such power cannot be exercised according to the whims and fancies of the authority”, it said.

The Court was of the view that every societal issue, be they economic policy, social justice or governance, must be viewed through the prism of Constitutional values and refracted through the foundational principles of justice, liberty, equality, and fraternity along with the fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution of India.

“Upon viewing the film from the perspective of an ordinary person, this Court found the theme of the film to be in tune with the foundational principles enunciated in our Constitution. It is beyond comprehension as to how the above theme can be termed as misrepresentation of inter-faith relationships, or portrayal of legitimate warnings from Hindu and Christian leaders, as unfounded and intolerant”, it added.

The Court observed that a Christian girl wearing Muslim attire or an interrogation scene at the police station with schoolboys present, cannot be termed as indecent or immoral, or capable of inciting violence.

“The depiction of a character as a Bishop of the Christian community and the dialogues of that person falls well within the artistic freedom guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a). This Court is not venturing to decide on the correctness of the last two excisions in Ext.P6, since the petitioners have decided to delete those scenes on their own”, it further said.

Conclusion

The Court remarked that even accepting the contention of the ASG that the Censor Board is involved in the act of balancing the freedom of the movie maker with the reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2), such balancing act cannot be carried out by overlooking the foundational principles of secularism and fraternity which are the bedrock of our great democracy.

“For the aforementioned reasons, the writ petition is allowed and Ext.P6 decision, except excision Nos.5 and 6, quashed. On the petitioners resubmitting the film after carrying out excision Nos.5 and 6, the Board shall examine the film following the prescribed procedure and issue fresh certification, within two weeks of re-submission”, it directed and concluded.

Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Writ Petition and quashed the CBFC’s order.

Cause Title- Juby Thomas & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025:KER:87147)

Appearance:

Petitioners: Advocates Joseph Kodianthara, Saneeje S, and John Vithayathil.

Respondents: ASG A.R.L. Sundaresan, Senior Advocate P. Sreekumar, CGC A. Rajagopalan, Advocates S. Anil Kumar, Shinu J. Pillai, Mariya Rajan, S. Suja, Ann Mariya John, and Felix Samson Varghese.

Click here to read/download the Judgment