The Kerala High Court continued hearing the plea against the film.
Petitioners argued that the title and teaser harm Kerala’s reputation.
The CBFC defended the name by citing other place-based films.
The Kerala Story 2 plea continued before the Kerala High Court as objections were raised over the film’s title and promotional material. The petition challenges The Kerala Story 2: Goes Beyond, alleging that its content is defamatory to the state and misleading in its claims.
The matter was heard by Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas, who had earlier indicated that the court was inclined to view the film. It was submitted that the makers were not willing to arrange a screening at this stage. The plea is based primarily on what was shown in the teaser. At the same time, the producers are understood to have clarified that the final film does not mirror the promotional material in its entirety.
Petitioners allege defamation and misrepresentation
It was argued by counsel Sreerag Shylan that the film was being promoted as based on true events and that the title itself casts Kerala in a negative light. Another petitioner’s counsel, Maitreyi Sachchidananda Hegde, submitted that certain content not permissible in theatres was allegedly being circulated on social media platforms.
It was further submitted that the petitioner, being a resident of Kerala, felt that her reputation and right to life were being adversely affected. It was also contended that while the film claimed to depict stories from Kerala, the victims presented were not from the state. Documents were produced to suggest that tensions had reportedly arisen in Maharashtra following the release of the first film in 2023.
CBFC and makers respond
A counsel representing the Central Board of Film Certification informed the court that it does not have jurisdiction over content shared online. On the issue of the film’s title, it was submitted that several films, such as Delhi Belly, Chennai Express, and Delhi-6, are named after places, and objections on that ground could lead to an endless debate.
Senior counsel S Sreekumar, appearing for the makers, questioned the locus standi of the petitioners. It was argued that they were not personally aggrieved by the film.
The hearing remained inconclusive and is set to continue. The film is scheduled for release on February 27.
