Table of Contents
The Kerala Story 2 Release Blocked, A Sequel Three Years in the Making, a Petition Filed by a Biologist, and a Court Order That Arrived With 18 Hours to Spare
The Kerala Story 2: Goes Beyond — the sequel to the 2023 Hindi film that became one of the most politically charged box-office stories of that year — was scheduled to release in theatres across India on February 27, 2026. It did not. The Kerala High Court, hearing three petitions challenging the film’s censor certification, issued an interim stay order on Thursday, February 26 — less than 18 hours before the first morning shows were to begin — and directed that the film cannot be released until the court has heard full arguments on the petitions. The court’s order also delivered a pointed rebuke to the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC), stating that the Board had cleared the film without “applying its mind” and directing it to properly examine the petitioners’ complaints. The producers have indicated they will challenge the order urgently before a higher bench of the same court.
What the Film Is: Plot, Cast, Director
The Kerala Story 2: Goes Beyond is directed by Kamakhya Narayan Singh and produced by Vipul Amrutlal Shah of Sunshine Pictures — the same producer behind the original 2023 film. The sequel stars Ulka Gupta, Aditi Bhatia, and Aishwarya Ojha in the leading roles. The narrative follows three Hindu girls from Kerala, Rajasthan, and Madhya Pradesh whose lives and relationships form the film’s central plot — each of the three girls enters into a relationship with a Muslim man, and the story explores, in the makers’ own framing, how those relationships evolve under “social and emotional pressure,” with themes of alleged religious conversion, coercion, and personal conflict. The final section of the film returns to Kerala: a Muslim man asks his Hindu girlfriend to live with him, she refuses to convert, and the trailer shows confrontations, emotional arguments, and breakdowns of trust. The makers have consistently maintained that the film is based on “true incidents” and that its storyline draws on real court cases.
Before it reached the court, the film already underwent 16 cuts by the CBFC — intimate scenes and assault sequences were trimmed by half — and received a U/A certificate (requiring parental guidance for audiences under 12) before the certification itself became the subject of the court’s scrutiny.
The Petitioners: Three Challenges, Two Survived
Three separate petitions were filed before the Kerala High Court challenging the film’s censor certification and release.
The first was filed by Sreedev Namboodiri, a biologist from Kannur, who alleged that the film’s title and promotional material — specifically the teaser and trailer — contained themes and dialogues capable of inciting communal violence and unfairly stigmatising the state of Kerala and its people. His specific objection centred on the teaser’s closing line “ab sahenge nahin… ladenge” (we will not tolerate it anymore, but will fight), which he argued amounted to a direct call for confrontation with communal consequences. He sought cancellation of the U/A certificate.
The second petition was filed by Freddie V Francis, who challenged the use of the word “Kerala” in the film’s title — arguing that the film’s storyline has little meaningful connection to Kerala or its actual social reality — and questioned the makers’ claim that the film is based on true events.
The third petition was filed by advocate Athul Roy, challenging both the certification and the title. The court dismissed Roy’s petition but passed the interim stay order on the Namboodiri and Francis petitions.
What the Court Said: CBFC Squarely in the Frame
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas of the Kerala High Court presided over the hearing and delivered the stay order on Thursday. The court’s criticism extended well beyond the film itself to the body that cleared it: the CBFC. The court found that the Board had failed to properly examine the petitioners’ concerns before granting the U/A certificate, stating that the Board “hasn’t applied mind” to the content and its potential consequences. The court directed the CBFC to consider the petitioners’ complaints with the seriousness they warranted before the next date of hearing.
The court had, at a preliminary hearing on Wednesday, already observed that the petitioners’ concerns were “probably genuine” — a characterisation that effectively signalled the court’s provisional view of the seriousness of the challenge before the formal stay order was passed. The producers’ senior counsel S. Sreekumar raised the issue of locus standi — arguing that the petitioners were not personally aggrieved by the film’s release and were raising a general public grievance that should properly take the form of a public interest litigation rather than a private petition — but the court proceeded to pass the stay regardless. The matter was adjourned and is listed for further hearing, with the stay remaining in force until arguments conclude.
The Film’s Troubled Pre-Release Journey
The controversy did not begin with the court. From the moment the teaser released, The Kerala Story 2 attracted the kind of polarised political and cultural response that its predecessor had generated in 2023 and that the makers appear to have anticipated, if not actively cultivated. Political leaders, filmmakers, and public figures criticised the film as propaganda — pointing to what they described as a pattern of presenting extreme fringe cases as representative of a community and a state. The trailer received “divisive reactions, with many calling it exaggerated,” as Hindustan Times reported.
Director Kamakhya Narayan Singh — who has a background in documentaries and positioned his research credentials as the film’s credibility anchor — responded to critics with a declaration whose specificity was notable: “If we have shown anything wrong in the film, I will quit filmmaking.” Producer Vipul Shah, who has consistently defended both the original and the sequel as awareness exercises rather than political products, said: “Our objective has always been awareness, to inform, and to empower young minds to stay alert and make informed choices.”
The film completed its shoot under what the production described as “strict security arrangements” — an indication of the level of threat perception that surrounded the project even before the cameras stopped rolling.
What Happens Next
The producers have confirmed they will move urgently before a higher bench of the Kerala High Court — likely a division bench — to challenge the single-judge stay order. The appeal was expected to be filed as early as Thursday itself, with the team requesting an expedited release of the detailed order to enable them to argue against it without procedural delay. The filmmakers are, by all indications, racing against every day the stay remains in force — a wide theatrical release on opening weekend is the commercial foundation of a film like this, and every day without a reversal translates directly into lost box-office momentum.
The CBFC meanwhile has been placed in the uncomfortable position of being asked by the court to re-examine its own certification decision — a direction that, if complied with substantively, could result in additional cuts or in the board recommending conditions on the film’s release that the producers have not agreed to. Whether the certification is revoked, modified, or upheld as-is will determine the legal basis on which any higher-court challenge proceeds.
The Larger Context: A Film That Follows a Playbook
The original The Kerala Story — released in May 2023 and directed by Sudipto Sen — told the story of a young Hindu woman who alleged she was lured into conversion and subsequently recruited for ISIS. It was banned in West Bengal and Tamil Nadu, challenged in multiple courts, allowed to screen by the Supreme Court with a mandatory disclaimer, and ultimately collected over ₹300 crore at the box office — a commercial success that its producers attributed to audience demand and its critics attributed to political mobilisation. The sequel inherits all of that context: the same producer, an equivalent subject, the same “based on true incidents” framing, and the same certainty of legal challenge.
What is different this time is that the stay arrived before the release rather than after it — meaning the film has not had the opportunity that the first film was given to generate box-office momentum before the courts intervened. Whether the higher bench moves quickly enough to allow a February release, or whether the film joins the growing list of Hindi films whose theatrical trajectories have been fundamentally shaped by litigation, is the question that the next 24–48 hours will begin to answer.
Discover. Learn. Travel Better.
Explore trusted insights and travel smart with expert guides and curated recommendations for your next journey.