Even before it hits the screens, The Kerala Story 2: Goes Beyond has managed to create the same level of commotion that most films experience only after their first weekend of release. The sequel, due to be released on February 27, has managed to elicit a condemnation from the Chief Minister of Kerala, has prompted a petition to be filed in the High Court, and has created a split among student bodies regarding how to protest against it. Whether it will hit the screens on schedule or not is now a matter that will have to be decided in court.
What the film claims to show
Going by the trailer, the sequel follows three Hindu women, played by Ulka Gupta, Aditi Bhatia, and Aishwarya Ojha, who fall in love with Muslim men despite their families' disapproval. The story then progresses to show how these relationships turn sour into abuse, isolation, and alleged forced conversion. The team claims that the film is based on 15 to 20 actual incidents that have been taken from police cases and court rulings in India. They have referred to its U/A certification from the Central Board of Film Certification as proof of its authenticity and integrity. Critics believe that the context of the film again positions inter-religious relationships within a larger conspiracy to malign the entire state of Kerala.
The scene that set off the internet
One thing from the trailer has overshadowed almost everything else. A woman is depicted being fed beef by force after she refuses to eat it. Beef has strong religious overtones in many places in northern India. In Kerala, however, beef is a common food that transcends religious groups. This is what the reaction reflected. Women from the state posted pictures and videos of themselves eating beef, some of which were clearly intended to be humorous. Memes went around about the absence of porotta, a Kerala favourite that is always served with beef curry. One viral parody had the actors breaking character mid-scene to mock the filmmakers before sitting down together for a shared meal. A satirical post styled as breaking news claimed beef prices had spiked across Kerala since the trailer’s release. The humour was unmistakable. Even among those enjoying the jokes, many stressed that the comedy should not obscure what they see as the film’s larger communal framing.
Political reactions
Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan criticised the trailer severely, calling The Kerala Story 2 “false propaganda with the intention to damage the secular fabric of Kerala.” He said that the film tends to show even consensual inter-religious marriages as coercive plots and that Kerala had already rejected the original film’s intentions. Congress MP Shashi Tharoor questioned the factual accuracy of the franchise. He remembered how the original film’s promotional statement about 32,000 women from Kerala being forcibly converted and recruited by ISIS was later scaled down to three after public and legal pressure.
Kerala BJP president Rajeev Chandrasekhar called Vijayan hypocritical. He said that freedom of expression cannot be selectively supported depending on who is being targeted and that no political leader has the right to decide what the viewing public should be allowed to see.
The High Court petition
On February 18, the issue took a legal turn. Sreedev Namboodiri, a biologist from Kannur, moved a petition before the Kerala High Court, challenging the censor certification of the film. The petitioners named the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, the Central Board of Film Certification, and producer Vipul Amrutlal Shah as respondents.
The petition states that the board has certified the film without properly taking into account the potential impact of the film on public order and communal harmony, as is mandatory under Section 5B of the Cinematograph Act, 1952. The petition also questions the inclusion of the name of Kerala in the title of the film, given that the incidents in the film are claimed to occur in various states. The petition states that this could potentially stigmatise an entire region’s population. The petition also states that certain statements in the trailer are a call to revenge.
A bench led by Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas issued notices to the respondents and posted the matter for hearing on February 24, three days before the planned release. The petitioner has sought a stay on the release pending disposal of the case, along with reconsideration of the title and appropriate disclaimers. For supporters of the film, the certification is sufficient. For opponents, the very act of certification raises questions about institutional responsibility in politically sensitive cases.
Divided responses among student groups
Resistance to the film has not been consistent. The Students Federation of India (SFI), the student wing of the ruling CPM, called for a beef festival at Thiruvananthapuram’s Manaveeyam Veedhi as a symbolic protest. This was seen as an effort to reclaim what they saw as cultural misrepresentation. The Muslim Students Federation, an affiliate of the Indian Union Muslim League, opposed this strategy in a public statement. MSF state general secretary said that a beef festival might alienate moderate Hindus and vegetarians who opposed the film but did not eat beef for their own reasons. He made a comparison, saying that a pork festival to mock Muslim beliefs would be rightly labelled communal. He said that this applied in this case as well. The MSF suggested a peaceful boycott, which they said was more principled and less likely to give the other side an easy victory.
The shadow of the first film
The original The Kerala Story, which came out in 2023, also followed a similar path. It received flak and was challenged in court for its claims. The trailer was later changed in response to criticism. However, the film still became a major commercial success and won two National Film Awards at the 71st National Film Awards ceremony, including the Best Director award for Sudipto Sen.
These awards again received criticism from the political class in Kerala. For those opposing the sequel, this is the important background context. They are worried that even when inaccuracies have been shown to be so in public forums, there is little institutional accountability. It has been suggested that, by downplaying some of the more far-fetched claims made in the first film but still maintaining the communal angle, the sequel could be more convincing, at least for those who are not aware of the social realities of Kerala.
The question at the centre
At the heart of the controversy is a known conflict. The makers and their supporters believe that uncomfortable truths need to be confronted head-on. They believe that banning cinema is a dangerous precedent and that the film is based on real instances, which are intended to raise awareness. The other side believes that storytelling, especially the kind that has a specific state and community at its core, can be used to perpetuate prejudice. They also wonder if the decision to name the film The Kerala Story 2, when it shows instances from different states, is a creative decision or a political one. Even fictional stories influence perception, and in a divided society, perception is important.
As the February 24 court hearing approaches and the release date draws nearer, the debate is unlikely to quieten. What happens in the courtroom may determine whether the film is released as planned. What follows after that will depend, as it did with the first film, on an audience that appears divided long before the lights dim.