The Kerala High Court on Friday dismissed appeals against a single-judge ruling from November 14 quashing four of the six cuts ordered by the Central Board of Film Certification to the Malayalam film Haal, Bar and Bench reported.
A division bench of Justices Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and PV Balakrishnan was hearing an appeal filed by the certification board and another one by an outfit named the Catholic Congress of the Thamarassery Diocese, which claimed that the film defamed the Thamarassery bishop for allegedly endorsing interfaith marriages.
Haal, depicting an interfaith love story between a Muslim boy and a Christian girl, was originally scheduled to release on September 12.
However, the release was postponed after the certification board in October told the producer, JVJ Productions, that the film was not suitable for unrestricted public exhibition.
The Central Board of Film Certification said that the film could be certified “A” (adults only) after making six prescribed deletions and modifications, including one scene that involved eating beef biryani.
The makers of the film subsequently moved the court against the directions.
During the hearing before a single-bench judge, the Catholic Congress and an office-bearer of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, the parent organisation of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party at the Centre, were impleaded to present their objections to the film, Onmanorama reported.
An impleading petition is a formal request to a court to add a new party to an ongoing lawsuit.
On November 14, the judge ruled that four of the excisions to the film ordered by the Central Board of Film Certification were unwarranted.
This included a dance sequence featuring a Christian girl in a burqa, another scene depicting the residence of the Thamarassery bishop and police interrogation scenes, Onmanorama reported. It also included a suggestion to blur the name of a Christian institution.
The makers of the film told the judge that they had made two of the cuts prescribed by the certification board on their own. One pertained to the scene involving the beef biryani, while the other depicted court proceedings.
Additionally, lines referencing “dhwaj pranamam”, a salutation associated with the RSS, “Ganapati Vattam”, the name the BJP had proposed for Sulthan Bathery in Wayanad, and “abhyantara shatrukkal”, meaning internal enemies, were also deleted by the makers.
The certification board had objected to these lines.
The single judge directed the Central Board of Film Certification to issue a fresh certification to the film after the filmmakers made the modifications and resubmitted it.
Subsequently, the certification board and the Catholic Congress moved the division bench against the order.
The Catholic Congress had claimed before the division bench that Haal depicted the Thamarassery bishop and the Bishop House without consent, Bar and Bench reported. It also claimed that some scenes could disturb communal harmony.
The single judge erred in overturning excisions two, three and four, the outfit submitted. It added that since the filmmakers had agreed to excisions five and six, allowing only those cuts would be “biased to one group”.
“How can you compel them [filmmakers] to remove?” Bar and Bench quoted the division bench as telling the counsel for the Catholic Congress. “It is their film. Please tell us any law being a respondent what relief can we grant. Whatever relief is granted is granted to the petitioner.”
It added that no relief could be granted to the outfit.
On the other hand, the Union government and the Central Board of Film Certification told the division bench that the single judge should not have heard the filmmakers’ petition at all.
The Cinematograph Act already provides a specific appeal process for anyone unhappy with an order issued by the certification board, it said, adding that the filmmakers should have used that route instead of approaching the court directly, Bar and Bench reported.
The Central Board of Film Certification also told the division bench that all six cuts to the film fell within the purview of reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2) of the Constitution, which allows restrictions to the freedom of expression for public order, decency, morality or to prevent defamation.
The division bench, however, concluded that there was no reason to overturn the previous order.
You’ve read Scroll.
Now help sustain it
Scroll is funded by readers, not corporate owners. If you believe our work matters, support our newsroom. Become a member today!
We’re not driven by clicks or corporate interests – just honest, independent reporting. Keep us going. Support Scroll today!