Haal Movie: Kerala High Court To Hear On Friday Producer's Plea Against CBFC Direction To Cut Scenes With Beef Biriyani, Burqa

The Kerala High Court on Tuesday (October 13) orally told that it was prepared to hear the plea preferred against the grant of A certification given by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) to Shane Nigam starrer movie 'Haal'.

The producer and director of the film had preferred the plea challenging the Revising Committee's decision to cut around six scenes in the film, including a beef biriyani eating scene, a sequence in song where heroine uses Muslim religious attire to hide her identity, scenes where the police are stated to be portrayed in "a bad light", etc.

Today when the case came up for consideration before Justice V.G. Arun, the counsel for the petitioners explained that there were no scenes in the movie warranting a cut by the CBFC.

The counsel explained that the plot of the movie is one in which a Muslim boy and a Christian girl falls in love and though both the families are opposed to their union, the hero's father is prepared to accept the girl into the family if she converts. However, the hero firmly says 'no' to this and on hearing the hero's strong stance in this regard, the heroine is prepared to convert her religion. However, later, the heroine changes her mind during the conversion ceremony, at which time the police intervenes and uses 'Love Jihad', etc. The movie concludes with both the families realising that there is no reason to fight and both can practice their own religions.

The petitioners' counsel submitted that one of the scenes to be cut is a Muslim dance where the girl is wearing a burqa. He contented that such attires are worn during dance performances in a youth festival. 

During the last posting, the petitioners submitted that they preferred a statutory appeal under Section 5C of the Indian Cinematograph Act, 1952. However, the Registry had informed that there is no nomenclature or provision for appeal. The Court then asked the Registrar General to submit a report in this regard.

Referring to the report today, the Court orally said, "As of now, a specific nomenclature under S.5C of the Act has been created and notified. Has to be considered as a writ petition unless the nomenclature is created. I am prepared to hear this."

When the respondents sought time to file a counter affidavit, the petitioners' counsel said that the movie was initially viewed by the board on September 10. On hearing this, the Court orally remarked, "Someone has spent a lot of money...I'll post it on Friday because it is urgent."

Case No: WP(C) No. 37251/2025

Case Title: Juby Thomas and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors.