Film should be judged from view of ordinary person, not hypersensitive one: Kerala HC directs CBFC to certify Haal

Last month, the CBFC had demanded that the makers of the Shane Nigam-starrer to carry out six modifications or deletions of several dialogues and scenes, including one pertaining to beef biryani. The filmmakers subsequently moved the High Court against the board’s stance.

While the matter was pending before the court, the filmmakers informed the court that they had decided to make two excisions on their own. These excisions pertain to scenes involving court proceedings and eating beef biryani. Besides, a line of dialogue that included the words “dhwaj pranamam”, a salutation associated with the RSS; “Ganapati Vattam”, which is what the BJP suggested Wayanad district’s Sulthan Bathery be renamed as; and “abhyantara shatrukkal”, which means internal enemies, were also deleted by the filmmakers.

Referring to the decision of filmmakers to make these modifications, the court said it was not venturing to decide on the correctness of the last two excisions in the CBFC order since the petitioners have decided to delete those scenes on their own.

The judge said that upon viewing the film from the perspective of an ordinary person, the court found the theme of the film to be in tune with the foundational principles enunciated in our Constitution. “It is beyond comprehension as to how the above theme can be termed as misrepresentation of inter-faith relationships, or portrayal of legitimate warnings from Hindu and Christian leaders, as unfounded and intolerant,” the court observed.

Referring to an excision directed by the board of a scene in which a Christian girl used Muslim religious attire, the court said, “A Christian girl wearing Muslim attire or an interrogation scene at the police station with schoolboys present cannot be termed as indecent or immoral, or capable of inciting violence. The depiction of a character as a Bishop of the Christian community and the dialogues of that person fall well within the artistic freedom guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a).”

On the board’s contention that it is involved in the act of balancing the freedom of the movie maker with reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2), the court said, “Such a balancing act cannot be carried out by overlooking the foundational principles of secularism and fraternity, which are the bedrock of our great democracy.”