The Catholic Congress has appealed against a decision by a Single Judge, which had set aside some of the cuts ordered by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) in relation to the Malayalam film Haal, starring Shane Nigam. The Catholic Congress challenged the quashing of Excisions 2 to 4 — which concerned certain scenes depicting a Bishop and alleged religious‑sensitivities — arguing the film misrepresented religious authorities, especially the Bishop of Thamarassery, and that filming of the Bishop’s house from outside was done without required consent.
In the appeal, the Catholic Congress contended that those scenes portrayed the Bishop as a supporter of interfaith marriages, contrary to his known public position, and sought that the excisions be reinstated. Despite these arguments, a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court — comprising Justices Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and P. V. Balakrishnan — orally questioned whether the Catholic Congress, being a respondent in the original writ petition, had any legal injury or right to claim relief under the appeal. The bench asked: as they were not petitioners, how could they seek relief? The concept of locus standi — who has the right to bring a matter before the court — emerged as central.
At the hearing, the court observed that interveners or respondents do not automatically gain the right to appeal just because they were part of litigation. “As a respondent, can you get any relief? … Any relief you want, you have to file a writ, separate,” Justice Dharmadhikari remarked. The Court questioned whether the appeal could succeed simply on merits without first establishing a valid legal standing. The judges noted that determining the maintainability of the appeal — i.e., whether the Catholic Congress had locus to appeal — must come before any adjudication of the content or merits of their objections.
When pressed about the films’ portrayal and the use of religious scenes without consent, the bench hesitated to comment on substance without actually viewing the film. Justice Dharmadhikari observed that the court “cannot make any comments” without having seen the film, and remarked that it would need to view it personally before any judgment. The Court also made clear that merely being aggrieved at depiction is not enough; legal standing and right to relief are essential.
In response, counsel for the Catholic Congress argued that since their objections and impleadment were part of the original writ petition under Article 226, they were entitled to appeal under Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act. They urged the court to order the scenes’ deletion. Their objection included scenes they claimed promoted “Love Jihad,” misrepresented Christian clergy, and could hurt religious sentiments.
The bench examined these submissions, but emphasised that the first hurdle was locus. Justice Dharmadhikari said that “locus issue” stood separate, and only after deciding on that could they consider the objections on merits. The court indicated skepticism about entertaining the plea on merits before resolving the fundamental question — who has the right to appeal.
Consequently, the Court reserved their verdict. While no final decision has been given, the tone suggests the court is seriously questioning the maintainability of the appeal.
This development follows a prior order by the same Court, wherein it had directed the filmmakers of Haal to resubmit the film after carrying out certain edits — including deletion of a scene involving beef biryani — and then reapproach the CBFC for fresh certification. In that earlier order, the Court had quashed the Board’s initial excisions, accepted the filmmakers' offer to delete certain sensitive scenes, and held that the film’s overarching theme — of interfaith relationship and reconciliation — did not by itself amount to misrepresentation or incitement of disharmony. The judgment had invoked the standard of how an “ordinary, prudent person” would view the film rather than that of an “oversensitive” one. It had also recognised the freedom of artistic expression under constitutional protections, while balancing reasonable restrictions.
The appeal by Catholic Congress now challenges the quashing of cuts and seeks to revive demand for broader deletions — including those affecting depiction of Christian institutions and clergy — but whether the Court will entertain that demand depends firstly on whether the petitioner has legal standing. The verdict, reserved by the Court, is awaited.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.