Skip to main content

Kerala High Court Rejects Interim Relief in Petition Seeking Ban on Empuraan: L2

In a significant legal decision, the Kerala High Court has declined interim relief to BJP leader VV Vijeesh, who had filed a plea demanding an immediate ban on the Malayalam film Empuraan: L2.

Court’s Response to the Petition

During the hearing, Justice CS Dias questioned the petitioner's motives, expressing skepticism about the need for judicial intervention in a film that has already been certified by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC). Addressing the plea, the judge remarked:

"Have you watched the movie Empuraan? What is your specific objection? It was certified by the Censor Board, right? I suspect your bona fide intentions. Show me a single complaint about incitement of violence caused by this movie. Show me a registered FIR. These petitions are just publicity stunts—nothing more."

The Court acknowledged arguments from the State Attorney, emphasizing that CBFC certification assumes a film is fit for public screening. As a result, the Court chose not to prioritize the case and denied immediate relief.

Case to Be Heard After Summer Vacation

Given the absence of police complaints or legal action against the film, the Kerala High Court postponed the hearing until after its summer recess. The official order cited precedents, reinforcing the principle that CBFC certification carries a legal presumption of validity.

"Once certification has been issued by statutory authorities, there is a presumption that the movie meets regulatory standards. Furthermore, no criminal case has been filed by the State police. Therefore, the petitioner's plea for interim relief is declined. The matter will be heard post-vacation."

The Deputy Solicitor General of India (DSGI) appeared on behalf of the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, while the State Attorney represented the Director General of Police. However, the Court decided against issuing notices to the film’s creators, including actor Mohanlal, director Prithviraj Sukumaran, writer Murali Gopy, and producer Anthony Perumbavoor.

Controversy Surrounding Empuraan: L2

The petition alleges that Empuraan: L2 references the 2002 Godhra riots and portrays its antagonist in a way that resembles a Bajrang Dal leader. According to VV Vijeesh, the film includes unwarranted remarks about India’s Ministry of Defence and portrays central investigative agencies in a negative light, potentially undermining public trust and credibility.

Despite these accusations, the filmmakers have proactively addressed concerns. They have voluntarily edited certain scenes, and updated versions are expected to be screened soon. Lead actor Mohanlal also issued a public apology, stating:

"Any controversial references will be removed from the film."

He further expressed regret over the backlash:

"I deeply regret any distress caused."

Legal and Industry Implications

The Kerala High Court’s ruling reinforces the importance of CBFC certification in protecting creative freedom. While filmmakers have agreed to modify certain scenes, this decision signals that petitions seeking outright bans on certified films may not be entertained without strong evidence of incitement or public unrest.

With the matter now scheduled for review after the summer recess, the fate of Empuraan: L2 remains uncertain. Will further legal challenges emerge, or will the controversy fade with the film’s modified release?

For now, the film continues its theatrical run—albeit with adjustments.

Stay connected with The Legal Catalyst for the latest updates on legal battles in the Indian film industry!


Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

India’s Extradition Treaties: How They Impact the Vijay Mallya & Nirav Modi Cases

Introduction Extradition is a critical tool in international law that enables countries to hand over fugitives to jurisdictions where they face criminal charges. India has signed extradition treaties with over 50 countries and extradition arrangements with 11 others to curb financial crimes, terrorism, and other serious offenses. However, high-profile cases like Vijay Mallya and Nirav Modi have tested India's extradition mechanisms and diplomatic relations. This article explores India's extradition laws, its treaties, and the challenges faced in these landmark cases. Understanding Extradition Laws in India 1. The Extradition Act, 1962 The primary legal framework governing extradition in India is T he Extradition Act, 1962 . This Act provides the conditions and procedures for extradition between India and foreign nations. Extradition Treaty Countries : India has formal agreements with over 50 countries , including the UK, USA, UAE, and Canada , which provide a legal basis for...
Post a Comment
Read more

The Role of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar in Framing the Indian Constitution

Introduction Dr. Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar, popularly known as the architect of the Indian Constitution, played a pivotal role in drafting and shaping the fundamental law of independent India. As the Chairman of the Drafting Committee, he was instrumental in laying the foundation of a just, inclusive, and democratic India. His contributions not only ensured legal safeguards for marginalized communities but also established India as a sovereign, socialist, secular, and democratic republic. In this blog, we will explore Dr. Ambedkar’s contributions to the making of the Indian Constitution, his vision, the challenges he faced, and his lasting impact on Indian democracy. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar: A Visionary Leader Born on April 14, 1891, Dr. Ambedkar was a social reformer, economist, and legal expert. His early experiences with caste-based discrimination fueled his determination to uplift the downtrodden and establish a legal system based on equality and justice. He earned multiple degrees, includi...
Post a Comment
Read more

R v. Dudley and Stephens (1884): A Landmark Case on Necessity Defense

Introduction The 1884 case of R v. Dudley and Stephens (14 QBD 273) is one of the most pivotal rulings in English criminal law, specifically regarding the Defense of Necessity in murder cases . This landmark judgment established the legal precedent that necessity cannot be invoked as a defense for murder , even in dire, life-threatening circumstances. Case Background: Survival at Sea In July 1884, Thomas Dudley, Edward Stephens, Brooks, and Richard Parker (a 17-year-old cabin boy) were left adrift after their yacht, Mignonette , sank. For over 20 days, the men survived on limited resources, including turnips and a turtle they managed to catch. As the situation worsened and Parker became gravely weak, Dudley and Stephens resolved to kill and consume Parker in order to survive. Although Brooks abstained from participating in Parker's death, he later consumed Parker's flesh. On the 24th day, the survivors were rescued by a passing ship. Upon their return to England, Dudley and St...
Post a Comment
Read more