High Courts Should Not Interfere In Academic Integrity Proceedings At Preliminary Stage: Kerala High Court Power Of Attorney Holder With Personal Knowledge Can Depose In Cheque Bounce Cases: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Acquittal Divorce Cannot Be Granted Merely on WhatsApp Chats: Bombay High Court Sets Aside Ex-Parte Decree Based on Unproved Electronic Evidence State Cannot Demand Settlement Amount Yet Withhold Legitimate Refund: Bombay High Court Strikes Down MVAT Settlement Order Surveyor’s Report Is Not Sacrosanct; Arbitral Award Ignoring Vital Evidence Is Perverse: Delhi High Court Sets Aside Insurance Arbitration Award When Victim Lives Under Exclusive Control Of Accused, Burden Shifts To Accused To Explain What Happened: Calcutta High Court Medical Evidence Clearly Indicating Suicide Cannot Be Overlooked, Prosecution Must Prove Homicidal Death Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Andhra Pradesh High Court 'Candidates Acted With Full Knowledge of Consequences': Kerala High Court Reverses Order for Refund of 10% Exit Fee in Medical PG Mop-Up Admissions Dispensing with Departmental Inquiry Without Material is Arbitrary: Supreme Court Sets Aside Dismissal of Delhi Police Constable Power Of Attorney Holder Authorized To Enforce Pre-Emption Right Can File Suit, Death Of Principal Does Not Bar Legal Heirs: Orissa High Court Government Servant Convicted In Criminal Case Can Be Dismissed Without Departmental Enquiry: Tripura High Court Upholds Teacher’s Dismissal RTI Cannot Be Used To Bypass Statutory Bar On Police Case Diaries: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Penalty Against Police Officers Externment Cannot Be Based On Police Report And Stale Cases: Madhya Pradesh High Court Quashes District Magistrate’s Order Even Exonerated Accused Can Be Summoned During Trial: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Summoning Under Section 358 BNSS Benefit of Doubt Acquittal Not Equal to Honourable Acquittal: Supreme Court Upholds Rejection of Police Constable Candidate Madras High Court Allows NEET-Failed Student To Appear In CBSE Class XII Mathematics Exam After Last-Minute Subject Switch By Parents Salary of Parents Cannot Be Used to Deny OBC Non-Creamy Layer Status in Absence of Post Equivalence: Supreme Court Father Who Rapes Minor Daughter Cannot Seek Leniency: Bombay High Court Upholds Life Imprisonment Construction Of Toilet Is Bare Necessity For Proper Use Of Premises, Expression "Own Use" Not Confined To Landlord's Personal Physical Use: Calcutta High Court 353 IPC | Conviction Cannot Rest On Uncorroborated Testimony Of Sole Witness When Other Evidence Contradicts Occurrence: Delhi High Court Upholds Acquittal 250 BNSS | 60-Day Discharge Period Is Procedural, Does Not Extinguish Accused's Right To Seek Discharge: Gujarat High Court Section 45 PMLA Cannot Become an Instrument of Endless Incarceration: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in ₹18 Crore Scholarship Scam Case Land Acquisition — Heirs Who Slept on Rights for 23 Years Cannot Claim Ignorance to Revive Dead Challenge: Karnataka High Court Institutional Hearing Is No Violation of Natural Justice: Kerala High Court Upholds BPCL’s Termination of Decades-Old Petroleum Dealership Witnesses Not Expected To Recount Past Incidents With Mathematical Precision, Minor Contradictions Don't Demolish Credibility: Orissa High Court If a Suit Is Ex Facie Barred by Limitation, the Court Has No Choice but to Dismiss It: P&H High Court

Kerala High Court Rejects Writ Petition Seeking Stay on 'The Kerala Story' Movie Release

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam has rejected a writ petition seeking to suspend the circulation of teaser and trailer of a movie called 'The Kerala Story' and to prohibit its exhibition. The petitioner had alleged that the movie contained derogatory remarks against a community and was based on incorrect and unverified facts, and its release would disrupt and destroy the secular fabric of society.

However, the court found that a competent statutory body, the Central Board of Film Certification, had examined the movie and found it suitable for public exhibition, after examining the movie in the context of the guidelines prescribed. The court further noted that the trailers did not contain anything offensive to any particular community as a whole.

The court also took note of the fact that the producers had published a disclaimer along with the movie, which specifically stated that the film had been fictionalized and was a dramatized version of events. The film does not claim accuracy or factuality of historic events. In view of the above, the court declined to pass an interim order restraining the respondents from exhibiting the film.

The court admitted the writ petitions and allowed the petitioners to prosecute their complaints before the relevant authorities. In one of the writ petitions, the petitioner had filed a complaint invoking Rule 32 of the Cinematograph (Certification) Rules before the Board. The court made it clear that the petitioner will be at liberty to prosecute the said complaint.

The bench comprising N. Nagaresh and Sophy Thomas, JJ. passed the order on May 5, 2023, after hearing the arguments of the learned counsel on either side.

THAMANNA SULTHANA

Versus

UOI ETC.

D.D.05 MAY 2023

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/kerala_movie1.pdf"]

Latest Legal News