The case revolves around Salman Khan’s allegations that the makers of the film have unlawfully used elements associated with his public identity and personality without authorization. The actor has approached the court seeking a stay on the film’s release, claiming that its promotional material and storyline could harm his reputation.

During the hearing before Justice Jyoti Singh, the court was informed that the film has not yet been submitted to the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) for certification. Counsel representing the producers clarified that the project is not currently ready for release and assured the court that it would not be sent to the censor board before the next date of hearing.

With the producer’s submission yet to be formally recorded and the certification process still pending, the court chose to defer the matter rather than issue any immediate restrictions on the film.

The development was followed by a public response from producer Amit Jani, who took to social media shortly after the hearing. In his post, Jani said Salman Khan had not obtained any relief from the court and emphasized that no ban had been imposed on the film. He also stated that the matter would now be heard again on July 6.

The producer further remarked that courts function independently of celebrity influence and suggested that stardom would not determine the outcome of the case. He claimed that the film is planned for a large-scale global release and could eventually be screened across thousands of theatres worldwide.

Salman Khan’s petition alleges that the makers have incorporated references that closely resemble his public image. According to the plea, promotional content associated with Kala Hiran features a character bearing similarities to the actor, including a blue bracelet that has long been considered one of Salman’s signature style elements.

The actor has argued that such portrayals amount to a violation of his personality rights and could mislead audiences into associating him with the project. Personality rights generally protect an individual’s name, image, likeness and other identifiable characteristics from unauthorized commercial use.

Another major concern raised in the petition relates to the film’s reported depiction of the 1998 blackbuck hunting case, one of the most closely followed legal matters associated with Salman Khan over the years. The actor has contended that the film allegedly presents certain events inaccurately and could create a misleading narrative around the controversy.

The petition also objects to the reported inclusion of references linked to gangster Lawrence Bishnoi and the widely discussed dispute that has drawn significant media attention in recent years. Salman Khan’s legal team has argued that any fictionalized or inaccurate representation of these issues could adversely affect his public image.

The court’s decision to postpone the hearing means the legal battle remains unresolved for now. However, the producer’s undertaking that the film will not be submitted for certification before the next hearing provides a temporary pause in the release process.

The outcome of the July 6 hearing is expected to be significant, as it could determine whether the film proceeds through the certification process or faces further legal scrutiny over the claims raised by the actor.

The sequel to the controversial 2023 blockbuster has ignited fresh debates over forced conversions, religious symbolism, and creative freedom just days before its theatrical debut.

The trailer for 'The Kerala Story 2' dropped on February 17, and within hours, the controversy machine was running at full throttle again. The sequel to the 2023 surprise hit is now facing intense backlash over specific scenes, political condemnation, legal challenges, and a very public war of words between its director and Bollywood filmmaker Anurag Kashyap.

Set to release in theatres on February 27, the film arrives amid familiar yet heightened tensions surrounding its predecessor's core themes of religious conversion and radicalisation.

What Sparked the Latest Controversy?

The trailer's most contentious moment involves a scene where a character is allegedly pressured to eat beef—a sequence critics argue is designed to portray a particular community negatively while reinforcing harmful stereotypes.

Supporters of the film, however, defend the scene as symbolic storytelling meant to depict the character's internal conflict and transformation. Given that beef consumption remains one of India's most politically and culturally sensitive topics—deeply intertwined with religious identity—the sequence has become ground zero for the current debate.

Political Leaders Speak Out

Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan, who had previously criticised the original film's narrative, has reiterated his concerns. State leadership argues that such portrayals unfairly target Kerala's image and promote misinformation about the region's social fabric.

"We cannot allow cinema to become a vehicle for distorting reality and damaging the harmonious coexistence that defines our state," a statement from the Chief Minister's office read, echoing sentiments expressed during the first film's release in 2023.

Bollywood's Divided House

Anurag Kashyap Calls It Propaganda

Filmmaker Anurag Kashyap didn't mince words when addressing the project. He openly questioned the intention behind revisiting such sensitive themes, suggesting the sequel crosses the line from storytelling into propaganda territory.

Kamakhya Narayan Singh Fires Back

Director Kamakhya Narayan Singh hit back at Kashyap's criticism, alleging that the acclaimed filmmaker has a problem with everything that doesn't align with his worldview. The exchange has split the film fraternity, with some supporting creative freedom while others worry about mainstreaming divisive content.

Actor Prakash Raj also weighed in, expressing concern that such narratives are becoming increasingly mainstream without encouraging meaningful dialogue between communities.

Legal Trouble Brewing

A petition has reportedly been filed in the Kerala High Court seeking cancellation of the censor certificate granted to the film. Petitioners question whether the Central Board of Film Certification adequately evaluated the potential impact on public harmony before clearing the project for release.

The legal challenge argues that the film could incite tension and disturb law and order in an already sensitive communal environment. Activists contend that given India's current social climate, films dealing with religion and extremism must be handled with greater responsibility.

The Original's Shadow Looms Large

To understand the current backlash, one must revisit 'The Kerala Story' (2023). The original film claimed to depict women from Kerala who were allegedly converted and recruited by ISIS. Its teaser initially stated that 32,000 women had gone missing and joined the terror group—a figure that triggered immediate outrage.

Political leaders and fact-checkers pointed out there was no verified data supporting such a massive claim. Following criticism, the makers modified their description, reducing focus to three women and calling it a "fictionalised account inspired by true events." The Supreme Court eventually allowed its release but mandated a disclaimer clarifying it was a fictionalised story without confirmed data.

The Bigger Debate: Freedom vs Responsibility

The controversy surrounding 'The Kerala Story 2' has reignited a fundamental question that refuses to go away:

Should filmmakers have complete creative freedom, or should stricter scrutiny apply when films touch upon religion and national security?

Supporters of the film call it bold and necessary storytelling that addresses uncomfortable truths. Critics label it divisive and dangerous, arguing that dramatised storytelling influences public perception and creates mistrust between communities.

Where exactly is the line between raising awareness and pushing an agenda? That's the question audiences, activists, and policymakers are grappling with as the February 27 release date approaches.

What Happens Next?

The film's ultimate impact may depend on how audiences interpret it once it hits theatres. But one thing is certain: 'The Kerala Story 2' has already succeeded in becoming more than just a movie. It's now a flashpoint in India's ongoing conversation about politics, freedom of expression, media narratives, and social harmony.