‘Haal’: Kerala HC trims censor demands, film cleared for review with two changes

‘Haal’ makers have gotten partial relief in long-running battle with Censor Board. On Friday (November 14), the Kerala High Court quashed the Central Board of Film Certification's (CBFC) order to delete six clips.

At the same time, Justice VG Arun made it clear that the film would be considered for certification again only if two key changes were made, not a complete acquittal. It is significant that he had seen the film before passing the judgment. The court found the CBFC's contention that six mandatory removals were required to issue an “A” certificate untenable.

Court orders two compulsory edits before allowing fresh certification review

As per IANS, both the changes ordered by the court touch upon the film's central debates.

First, the scene where the characters eat biryani should be deleted. Second, texts deemed derogatory to certain cultural institutions should be removed; Also, the 'Ragi', which is clearly visible in the scene, should be blurred. In addition, the text “Athildanne… Mada Thilekumi Kanu…” was also ordered to be deleted. Once these two changes are made, producers can again approach the CBFC.

The court has directed the board to take a fresh decision within two weeks.

This is the importance of partial relief, even if it gets rid of six cuts, two mandatory corrections are necessary.

Producers argue CBFC overreached

The film crew was in a position to file a petition against the CBFC's earlier conditions. The board said six changes must be made to get the film A certified. These include deleting a song in which the heroine is dressed as a Muslim, hiding the name of an educational institution, etc. Arguing for the producers, a senior advocate said that the film is essentially a bi-religious youth-girl love story, with excessive violence.

He argued that the board overreacted, even when there was no ugliness or seriousness.

Additional objections from religious and cultural groups add complexity

But the CBFC side, through the Cabinet Deputy Legal Counsel, argued that the film "enters sensitive religious space" and contains scenes that could create unrest in communities. To this, "Is a slight 'inconvenience' the only reason to block a film?" Justice Arun questioned that. Apart from this, the Catholic Congress, Thamarassery Diocese, and an RSS functionary had raised additional objections to the film. While the court has now given a balanced verdict, the CBFC's new verdict is mainly awaited after the mandatory amendments are made.