Film censorship - Social impact of a movie is to be judged from the perspective of an ordinary person of reasonable intelligence

Kerala High Court Upholds Artistic Freedom in Film Censorship Case Court Quashes Censor Board's Restrictions, Emphasizes Judging Films from Ordinary Person's Perspective

In a landmark decision, the Kerala High Court has upheld the freedom of artistic expression by quashing the restrictions imposed by the Censor Board on the film titled "HAAL," produced by Juby Thomas and directed by JVJ Productions. The court, in its judgment delivered on December 12, 2025, emphasized the importance of evaluating the social impact of films from the perspective of an ordinary, reasonable person rather than hypersensitive individuals.

The case arose when the Censor Board deemed the film unsuitable for unrestricted public exhibition, recommending an "A" certificate subject to certain excisions and modifications. The producers challenged this decision, arguing that it violated their freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.

The Division Bench of Justices Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and P. V. Balakrishnan, after viewing the film and considering the arguments, upheld the learned Single Judge's decision to quash the Censor Board's restrictions, save for two excisions that the filmmakers agreed to expunge. The court directed the Censor Board to issue a fresh certification within two months of resubmission.

The court's judgment underscored that films should be judged by their overall message and not based on isolated depictions of social issues. Citing various Supreme Court precedents, the bench reiterated that artistic expressions are not to be stifled by orthodox notions or moral policing, and the standards of a "reasonable, strong-minded, and courageous" person should be the benchmark.

Furthermore, the court addressed the procedural aspect under Section 5C of the Cinematograph Act, 1952, which provides for appeals against Censor Board decisions. It directed that appeals be accepted under the nomenclature "MFA (Cinematograph Act)" until a specific nomenclature is officially notified, ensuring that the statutory right of appeal is not curtailed on technical grounds.

This judgment is expected to have significant implications for the film industry, reinforcing the protection of artistic freedom while providing clarity on procedural aspects of film certification appeals.

Bottom Line:

Film censorship - Social impact of a movie is to be judged from the perspective of an ordinary person of reasonable intelligence, and not hypersensitive individuals. Restrictions imposed by the Censor Board found to be an unwarranted impingement on artistic freedom guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. Specific nomenclature for appeals under Section 5C of the Act directed to be accepted.

Statutory provision(s): Cinematograph Act, 1952 Section 5B, Cinematograph Act, 1952 Section 5C, Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution

Catholic Congress v. Juby Thomas, (Kerala)(DB) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2821560