Thiruvananthapuram / Kochi — The release and certification of The Kerala Story 2 have triggered a protracted legal and cultural controversy in Kerala, raising complex questions about freedom of expression, factual representation and communal harmony.
The sequel to the contentious 2023 film The Kerala Story which dramatized alleged cases of radicalization and trafficking in the State has once again become a flashpoint. Earlier this week, the Kerala High Court took up petitions challenging the film’s certification by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) and its depiction of Kerala’s social fabric.
In its proceedings, the court highlighted concerns that the film’s narrative may distort the image of Kerala’s secular ethos and communal harmony, potentially fueling societal tensions. While the court refrained from issuing an outright ban, it noted that artistic licences must be balanced with constitutional guarantees of equality and public order, and urged filmmakers to consider factual grounding in such sensitive material.
Earlier, reports had indicated that the filmmakers were hesitant to screen the film before the bench, signalling reservations over judicial preview of creative work. The High Court’s scrutiny follows similar litigation in other jurisdictions where petitioners argued that the film misrepresents demographics and societal norms, provoking apprehensions among sections of the public.
The controversy has also spilled into public debate, with a range of voices weighing in. Director Anurag Kashyap, in an unusually blunt critique, described The Kerala Story 2 as driven by commercial motives and accused its producers of exploiting communal narratives for box office gains. “[The maker] is a greedy man who just wants to make money,” Kashyap tweeted, reflecting broader unease among some filmmakers about the ethical implications of the story.
The Kerala Story 2 risks presenting a one-sided portrayal that unfairly maligns Kerala’s pluralistic traditions. Legal petitions before the High Court include arguments that the film’s promotional materials and narrative arc could incite communal friction by depicting certain communities in a prejudicial light.
The Kerala High Court has signaled that it will examine the film’s certification process, its adherence to statutory guidelines and its potential societal impact, but has stopped short of preemptively blocking public exhibition. The court’s engagement reflects a broader constitutional tension: the need to protect artistic freedom under Article 19(1)(a) while safeguarding public order and preventing hate speech under Article 19(2).
The court also observed that using the state’s name and claiming the film is based on true facts can lead to communal tensions in the state. ‘The people of Kerala live in harmony and uphold secularism. But the film portrays them wrongly,’ observed Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas while hearing pleas challenging granting of censor certificate to the movie.
As the legal review unfolds, industry observers caution that the controversy may have lasting implications for how sensitive themes are handled in mainstream cinema. Filmmakers, critics and civil society organisations alike have flagged the need for responsible storytelling that navigates the intricate balance between social commentary and factual integrity.
