The Supreme Court of India has temporarily lifted the ban imposed by the West Bengal government on the film ‘The Kerala Story.’ However, the court has directed the filmmakers to include a disclaimer stating that the movie is a work of fiction and lacks supporting evidence for its claim that 32,000 women in Kerala were forced to convert to Islam and join the terrorist group ISIS.
In response to the court’s decision, the producer of the film, Vipul Shah, has invited West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee to watch the movie and engage in a discussion about its content. He expressed his willingness to consider any valid criticisms from the Chief Minister and present his perspective on the film. Shah’s appeal came with a request for constructive dialogue, demonstrating his willingness to address concerns and engage in a meaningful conversation.
Chief Justice DY Chandrachud emphasized the responsibility of the West Bengal government to maintain law and order, noting that the film had already been certified by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC). However, the ruling Trinamool Congress (TMC) emphasized that if any issues arise due to the screening of the film in West Bengal, the opposition should not hold the ruling party solely responsible.
Directed by Sudipto Sen and produced by Vipul Shah, ‘The Kerala Story’ features actors Adah Sharma, Yogita Bihani, Sonia Balani, and Siddhi Idnani. The film was released on May 5. Director Sudipto Sen commented on the Supreme Court’s decision, stating that no state has the authority to ban a film once it has received certification from the CBFC. He labeled the ban as illegal and highlighted the court’s affirmation of the right to watch the film, even if one may not personally like it.
The ban on ‘The Kerala Story’ was imposed by Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee on May 8, to prevent any incidents of hatred or violence. A senior government official stated that the decision was made after careful consideration and emphasized that the government would not tolerate any attempts to incite violence.
The Supreme Court’s intervention provides a temporary respite for the film’s creators, allowing it to be screened in West Bengal. However, the requirement to include a disclaimer clarifying that the movie is a fictionalized account underscores the need to differentiate between artistic expression and factual claims. The case highlights the delicate balance between freedom of expression and the responsibility to prevent the spread of misinformation or potential harm.
