The West Bengal government has told the Supreme Court that the movie Kerala Story contains hate speech as it is based on manipulated facts which may lead to law and order issues in the State and eventually lead to communal disharmony.
In the counter affidavit, the State Government of West Bengal has submitted that the screening of the movie is likely to cause clashes among extremist groups.
The government in its counter-affidavit also defends its decision for banning the controversial film in the State for avoid any untoward incident of hatred and violence.
The State Government stated that as been gauged from various Intelligence inputs the movie is based on manipulated facts and contains hate speech in multiple scenes that may hurt communal sentiments and cause disharmony between the communities.
The movie Kerala Story is about a group of women from Kerala who join ISIS. The film was released on May 5.
The film invited criticism even before its release from several quarters. In Kerala, the ruling CPI(M) and the opposition Congress party alleged that it is a propaganda movie promoting a fake narrative and an agenda of right wing organisations.
After the Supreme Court had on Friday asked the State file reply on banning the movie in state that the present affidavit was filed West Bengal Government
The Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud had orally remarked that the movie had been released in the rest of the country and West Bengal was not different.
The petitioners in the case are the makers of the movie who have challenged the constitutionality of Section 6(1) of the West Bengal Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1954 under which the West Bengal government issued the order banning the film.
The top court will continue hearing the matter tomorrow.
The State government however has said that the plea is vague, misconceived and non-maintainable.
The State Government has asked for considering the Calcutta High Court best suited to appreciate the demographics of the State … parameters (for law and order) which cannot by any stretch of imagination be indentical for two states, under indentical situation.”
it added that the ban was a policy decision based on adverse intelligence inputs. It was also added that there is no fundamental rights violation of the petitioners;
It is underscored that the petitioners cannot cite financial losses as a violation of fundamental rights.