The Kerala High Court on Friday, 27 February 2026, vacated the interim stay imposed by a single judge on the release of the film Kerala Story 2 – Goes Beyond in Vipul Amrutlal Shah v. Freddy V. Francis & Ors.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice P.V. Balakrishnan set aside the stay earlier granted by single judge Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas.

Justice Thomas had, at 3 PM on Thursday, 26 February 2026, stayed the release of the film for 15 days and directed the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) to examine representations filed against the movie.

The producers immediately moved the Division Bench in appeal. An urgent special sitting was convened at 7:30 PM the same evening. After hearing the parties for over two hours, the Bench reserved judgment and pronounced its verdict at 4 PM on Friday, vacating the stay.

Challenge Before Single Judge

The interim order had been passed on two petitions challenging the film’s release on the ground that it misrepresents Kerala and could incite communal disharmony.

One petition was filed by Kannur resident Sreedev Namboodiri, who alleged that the sequel’s title and promotional materials, including the teaser and trailer, contained themes and dialogues capable of inciting violence and unfairly stigmatizing the State of Kerala.

Namboodiri specifically objected to the teaser’s closing line, “ab sahenge nahin… ladenge” (we will not tolerate it anymore, but will fight), arguing that it amounted to a call for confrontation capable of triggering communal violence.

A separate petition by Freddie V. Francis sought a ban on the film and challenged the use of the term “Kerala” in the title. He argued that the title falsely associated the State with terrorism and forced religious conversion despite the film involving characters from multiple States. He termed this “marketing of hate” and questioned the claim that the film was based on true events.

Single Judge’s Interim Stay

While granting interim relief, Justice Thomas observed that, prima facie, there appeared to be an absence of application of mind by the CBFC while granting certification. He directed the CBFC to consider the petitioners’ revision pleas within two weeks and ordered that the film should not be released for 15 days.

Justice Thomas noted that although courts are generally hesitant to interfere with film releases, intervention may be warranted where the alleged content has the genuine potential to incite communal disharmony.

Appeal Before Division Bench

Challenging the stay, the producers sought urgent relief, pointing out that the film was slated for international release on 27 February 2026.

During the hearing, Justice Dharmadhikari remarked, “We had no idea that the judgment was yet to be delivered. It was only delivered in the afternoon.”

Senior Advocates Neeraj Kishan Kaul and Elvin Peter, appearing for the producers, argued that the petitioners lacked locus standi to maintain a regular writ petition since their grievance was essentially in the nature of a Public Interest Litigation.

They further submitted that CBFC certification carries a strong presumption of regularity, that the film contains a prominent disclaimer, and that it presents a multi-State narrative rather than one confined to Kerala. The producers also argued that pre-release restraint on a certified film is the most extreme form of censorship and that precedents strongly discourage such commercial disruption of free speech.

Advocates Maitreyi Sachchidananda Hegde, Rizla K.M., and Deepika K. Sasi appeared for Namboodiri, while Advocates Sreerag Shylan, Ferha Azeez, and Devananda S. represented Francis.

Earlier Hearing

Earlier, on Tuesday, 24 February 2026, the High Court had sought the Centre’s immediate stand on whether a screening of the film could be arranged before deciding the petitions.

During that hearing, Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas orally observed: “Kerala lives in total harmony. But you have portrayed that this is happening all over Kerala. There is a wrong indication and can also incite passion. That is where the censor board comes into play. Have you considered that?”

The court noted that apprehensions expressed by sections of the public “cannot be ignored,” particularly because the film uses the name of Kerala in its title.

“…Normally, I do not interfere with any movie. Artistic freedom. But you are saying that it is inspired by true events and name Kerala is given, which can create some communal tension. I will watch the movie tomorrow. You can arrange a screening of the movie tomorrow,” the judge said.

Source: Bar and Bench

Subscribe to our channels on WhatsApp, Telegram, Instagram and YouTube to get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.