The Single Judge had claimed that parts of the film's teaser showed content that could possibly disrupt communal harmony and that the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) might not have given proper consideration to this under Section 5B of the Cinematograph Act, 1952.
However, the Division Bench pointed out that once the CBFC, which is a statutory authority, has fully reviewed the film and given certification, courts should generally assume that they have properly considered the matter.
The court used two major Supreme Court decisions to back its decision.
First, in Prakash Jha Productions v. Union of India, related to the movie Aarakshan, the Supreme Court said that once a film is certified by the CBFC, state governments can't stop its screening just because of fears about law and order. The court made it clear that the responsibility of maintaining public order lies with the state, not as a reason to stop a film that has been certified.
Second, the court referred to Viacom18 Media Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, the case involving the movie Padmaavat.
The Supreme Court in that case said that creative content is protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. Once a film is certified, there is a strong assumption that the statutory rules, including those about public order and communal harmony, were considered properly. States can't block a film on uncertain or speculative grounds.
The Kerala High Court said the petitioners had not watched the full film and were only using clips from the teaser.
It also noted that the producer had made changes based on the CBFC's recommendations, which supports the idea that the film went through proper review. Therefore, making a decision based only on selected parts of the film could not be justified.
In the case of Viacom18 Media Private Limited and others v. Union of India and others [(2018) 1 SCC 761], the Supreme Court stayed the state-imposed bans on the film Padmaavat in Gujarat, Rajasthan, etc.
The court upheld the freedom of expression and said states cannot stop showing a film that has been certified by the CBFC because maintaining law and order is the state's job, not a reason to block the film.
The case of M/S Prakash Jha Productions & Anr vs Union Of India & Ors (2011) 8 SCC 372 is another landmark Supreme Court decision.
It confirmed that once a film is certified by the CBFC, state governments cannot block it from being shown because of possible public unrest. This reinforces the importance of freedom of speech.
