Impingement On Artistic Freedom: Kerala High Court Dismisses Catholic Congress's Appeal Challenging Movie Haal

The High Court was considering the appeals challenging the judgment allowing the writ petition filed by the producer and director of the movie.

The Division Bench of Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice P.V. Balakrishnan held, “As regards the scene relating to the alleged conversion of the heroine, there is nothing in the movie to show that the heroine was forced to undergo such a process as alleged by the appellant. In such circumstances, we find that the contentions raised by the appellant in Writ Appeal No.2803 of 2025 are only based on the view point of a person having a hypersensitive, intolerant, and blinkered mind and hence cannot be accepted. As rightly found by the learned Single Judge, the restrictions imposed by the Censor Board undoubtedly is an unwarranted impingement on the artistic freedom guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.”

Advocate Mariya Rajan represented the Petitioner while Advocate G. Sreekumar represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The first respondent is the producer, and the second respondent is the Director of the movie titled “HAAL”. The respondents under the banner “JVJ Productions” produced the aforementioned movie. Initially, it was decided to release the film for Onam, but due to unforeseen reasons, it got delayed. The movie was forwarded, and an application was submitted before the second appellant for a censor certificate. The movie was played before the Censor Board, and it was informed that further communications would be issued shortly. Later, while checking the application status, the respondents came to know that the same had been forwarded to the Revision Committee. It was without any intimation to the respondents that the application was forwarded to the Revision Committee and the same was illegal and arbitrary.

Even though as per the application status, it was stated that the matter was pending before the Revision Committee, no intimations were received by the respondents. The second appellant communicated the decision to the respondents, stating that the movie was not suitable for unrestricted exhibition. It was also stated that restricted public exhibition could be granted with AA certificate, subject to certain excisions and modifications. Agrieved thereby, the respondents filed a writ petition. The Single Judge, after watching the movie and considering the materials on record and hearing both sides, allowed the writ petition and quashed the decision. The Single Judge also directed the Board to issue fresh certification after completing the procedural formalities within two months of resubmission.

Reasoning

On a perusal of the facts of the case the Bench noted that the excisions/modifications of certain scenes had been recommended in Sl. Nos.1 to 4 on the basis of Clause 2(xii), Clause 2(xviii), and Clause 3(i) of the Guidelines for Certification of Films for Public Exhibition, in 1991. As per Clause 2(xii), the movie must not contain visuals or words contemptuous of racial, religious or other groups and as per Clause 2(xviii), must not contain visuals or words involving defamation of an individual or a body of individuals or contempt of court. As per Clause 3(i) the Board of Film Certification shall ensure that the film is judged in its entirety from the point of view of its overall impact.

The Bench referred to the dictums of the Apex Court wherein it has been reaffirmed that the social impact of a movie is to be judged from the perspective of an ordinary person of reasonable intelligence and not of a hypersensitive person, and social change, rather than orthodox notions or what is right and moral must be borne in mind. “While analyzing the movie in its entirety by keeping in mind the afore principles of law, we have no hesitation to find that the contentions raised by the appellant in Writ Appeal No. 2803 of 2025, are totally unfounded and trumped-up”, it stated.

The Bench further noted that the movie as a whole depicts a love story between a Muslim boy and a Christian girl, facing opposition from their families against their union. The opposition from the respective families is on the basis of their own religious faith/beliefs. But both the boy and the girl overcomes the hurdle with the help of a well-wisher who acts as their guardian, by convincing each of their families that they can move forward in their lives, after marriage, by keeping aside their faiths. The movie shows that religious leaders of both the communities also accept the afore view and repents their earlier actions.

“It is beyond doubt that when a statutory right of appeal is provided to a person, the same cannot be curtailed on technical grounds such as the one referred to above. In such circumstances, while holding that the present case will not be treated as a precedent, we hereby direct the Registry to accept and entertain appeals filed under Section 5C of the Cinematograph Act, 1952, under the nomenclature MFA (Cinematograph Act) until, a specific nomenclature is adopted by issuing appropriate notifications/modifications. We also hope that the Registry will ensure compliance of the aforeorder, without much delay”, it ordered.

The Bench was of the view that the Single Judge rightly found that the restrictions imposed by the Censor Board undoubtedly is an unwarranted impingement on the artistic freedom guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. The Bench thus dismissed the appeal by directing the Registry to accept and entertain appeals filed under Section 5C of the Cinematograph Act, 1952, under the nomenclature MFA (Cinematograph Act).

Cause Title: Catholic Congress v. Juby Thomas (Neutral Citation: 2025:KER:94508)

Appearance

Petitioner: Advocates Mariya Rajan, Shinu J.Pillai, S.Suja, Ann Mariya John, Felix Samson Varghese

Respondent: Advocates G. Sreekumar, S.Anil Kumar

Click here to read/download Order