Kochi, March 5: The Kerala High Court issued a stern warning to petitioners regarding the film ‘Kerala Story 2: Go Beyond’ on Thursday. The court criticized comments made by the petitioners questioning the judges’ decisions.
The bench, led by Chief Justice Soman Sen and Justice Shyam Kumar VM, emphasized that making such allegations against judges or other benches is a serious matter that undermines the judicial system and the dignity of the court. The court cautioned that such remarks could lead to contempt of court proceedings.
The petitioners, social activist and retired teacher KC Chandramohan and lawyer Mehnaz P. Mohammed, sought to halt the film’s release, claiming it misrepresents the image of Kerala. They alleged that the film portrays the state as a hub of terrorism and extremism without any substantial evidence.
The petitioners argued that over 150 Muslim characters are depicted negatively, contributing to Islamophobia. They asserted that the film fails to represent the real lives of peaceful Muslim citizens. Additionally, they objected to the film’s title, ‘Kerala Story,’ claiming it tarnishes the state’s image and disrespects its citizens’ dignity. They also cited a violation of citizens’ rights under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
Previously, on February 26, the High Court heard the case and temporarily halted the film’s release. However, the next day, the filmmakers filed an appeal, leading to a division bench comprising Justices S.A. Dharmadhikari and P.V. Balakrishnan lifting the ban and allowing the film to be released in theaters. A final decision on the appeal is still pending.
The petition also questioned how the appeal was heard so quickly, given that the single judge’s order had not yet been uploaded to the court’s website. The Chief Justice strongly objected to this and stated that blaming judges without complete information is unacceptable.
The High Court clearly stated that if the petitioners disagree with any ruling, they may appeal to the Supreme Court, but maintaining the dignity of the judiciary is everyone’s responsibility.
Following the court’s objections, the petitioners’ lawyer promptly apologized, stating that the contentious sections of the petition would be removed.
–
Leave a Comment