Kochi, March 5 (NationPress) The Kerala High Court expressed strong disapproval on Thursday regarding comments made by petitioners aimed at a Division Bench that previously removed the stay on the release of the film 'Kerala Story 2: Goes Beyond'.

A Bench composed of Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar VM took significant issue with specific assertions found in a new Public Interest Litigation (PIL) contesting the film's release.

During court proceedings, the Bench highlighted that the petition included claims questioning the legitimacy of another Division Bench's decision, which had been made by Justices S. A. Dharmadhikari and P. V. Balakrishnan to lift the stay on the film's release.

"This is irrelevant to the issue at hand. You are casting aspersions against another coordinate bench. How can you make such allegations?" Chief Justice Sen queried the petitioners.

The court was addressing a PIL put forth by K.C. Chandramohanan, a retired educator and social activist, alongside advocate Mehnaz P. Mohammed.

The petition argued against the film's screening, claiming it slandered Kerala by depicting the State as a hub of terrorism and radicalization, labeling it a "terror nursery" without credible evidence.

According to the petitioners, the film portrayed over 150 Muslim characters through an "Islamophobic lens" and neglected to represent peaceful members of the community.

They contended that designating the title Kerala Story for what they characterized as a fabricated multi-State narrative constituted an unconstitutional labeling of Kerala and violated the collective dignity and reputation of its citizens as outlined in Article 21 of the Constitution.

Previously, on February 26, a single-judge Bench of the High Court had suspended the film's release following another PIL.

However, in response to an urgent plea from the filmmakers, a Division Bench comprising Justices Dharmadhikari and Balakrishnan reinstated the release on February 27 after thorough deliberation, allowing the film to be screened in theaters.

The ultimate decision on the appeal remains pending.

The recent petition also raised concerns over how the appeal had been presented and expedited by that Bench before the single-judge's stay order was even published on the court's website.

The Chief Justice viewed this argument unfavorably, cautioning that such statements could potentially lead to contempt proceedings.

"You are making these claims without fully understanding the situation. If you feel wronged, you may approach the Supreme Court, but casting aspersions on judges is unacceptable," the Bench remarked.

Following the court's objections, the petitioners' legal representative issued an unconditional apology and consented to remove the contentious statements.

The Bench subsequently allowed the petitioners to withdraw their plea and submit a new petition devoid of the disputed sections.