Once CBFC Grants Certificate, Courts Cannot Stall Release On Teaser Clips: Kerala High Court Clears “The Kerala Story 2 Goes Beyond”

“Prima Facie Presumption Arises That Guidelines Under Section 5B Have Been Duly Considered”, In a significant ruling reaffirming the primacy of statutory film certification and the constitutional protection of cinematic expression, the Kerala High Court on 27.02.2026 stayed the interim order of a Single Judge that had restrained the release of the film titled “The Kerala Story 2 Goes Beyond” for 15 days.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice P.V. Balakrishnan held that once the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) grants certification after viewing the film in its entirety, a presumption arises that the statutory guidelines under Section 5B of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 have been duly applied. An interim stay based solely on teaser clips, without viewing the full film, was found unsustainable.

Background: Single Judge Stayed Release On Communal Disharmony Concerns

The appellant, producer of the film, challenged the interim order dated 26.02.2026 passed in W.P.(C) Nos. 6574 & 6854 of 2026, whereby the learned Single Judge had stayed the release of the film for 15 days.

The Single Judge, after perusing the teaser and screenshots placed on record, found that the content had a prima facie potential to distort public perception, disturb communal harmony, and possibly denigrate a community. It was also observed that there appeared to be a lack of application of mind by the CBFC in granting certification.

The producer approached the Division Bench in appeal.

“Creative Content Is An Insegregrable Aspect Of Article 19(1)(a)”

The Division Bench noted that it was undisputed that the teaser content formed part of the movie and that the CBFC had issued certification after watching the film in full. Crucially, it was also admitted that the writ petitioners had not viewed the film in its entirety and were relying solely on the teaser.

Placing reliance on Viacom 18 Media Private Limited v. Union of India, the Court reproduced the Supreme Court’s observation:

“The creative content is an insegregable aspect of Art.19(1) of the Constitution… Once the parliamentary legislation confers the responsibility and the power on a statutory Board and the Board grants certification, non-exhibition of the film by the States would be contrary to the statutory provisions and infringe the fundamental right of the petitioners.”

The Bench emphasized that although freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a) is not absolute and is subject to regulatory measures under Section 5B of the Act and the guidelines framed thereunder, once the expert statutory body has applied its mind and granted certification, courts must tread cautiously before restraining exhibition.

Presumption Of Due Application Of Mind By CBFC

The Court observed that when a certificate is issued, “there is prima facie a presumption that the authority concerned has taken into account all the guidelines including public order.”

This presumption, the Bench clarified, includes the assessment of the film “in its entirety from the point of view of its overall impacts,” consistent with Section 5B of the Cinematograph Act.

The Court further noted that the appellant had carried out insertions, excisions and modifications as directed by the CBFC, which “would only further reinforce the fact that there is an application of mind from the part of CBFC while granting the certificate.”

In such circumstances, the Division Bench held that merely on the basis of selective clippings and without viewing the full film, the conclusion that the CBFC had failed to consider statutory guidelines “cannot be countenanced.”

Law And Order Concerns: Duty Of The State

Relying on Prakash Jha Productions v. Union of India and the recent Supreme Court decision in Atul Mishra v. Union of India (W.P.(C) No.181 of 2026), the Bench reiterated that apprehension of public disorder is not a valid ground to restrain exhibition of a certified film.

Quoting the Supreme Court, the Bench noted that “once the expert body has considered the impact of the film on the public and has cleared the film, it is no excuse to say that there may be a law and order situation due to screening of the movie.”

It underscored that if any issue of public order arises, “it is the duty of the State to maintain it,” and not for courts to pre-emptively prohibit exhibition on speculative apprehensions.

Interim Order Interdicted, Release Permitted

In view of the settled legal position and the presumption attached to CBFC certification, the Division Bench held that the interim order interdicting the release of the movie was liable to be stayed.

Accordingly, the impugned order dated 26.02.2026 was stayed, and the release of “The Kerala Story 2 Goes Beyond” was permitted pending disposal of the writ petitions. The writ appeals were admitted.

The judgment reinforces the constitutional status of cinema as protected expression under Article 19(1)(a) and affirms that judicial interference after CBFC certification must be exercised with restraint. By holding that teaser-based apprehensions cannot override statutory certification, the Kerala High Court has reiterated that the remedy for law and order concerns lies in administrative preparedness, not prior restraint on speech.

Date of Decision: 27.02.2026