The Madras High Court ruled that a CBFC-certified film cannot be stopped just because a small section of society disagrees with it. The Court upheld free speech under Article 19(1)(a) and dismissed the plea seeking a ban during Tamil Nadu elections.
The Madras High Court on April 10 refused to stop the screening of the movie Dhurandhar: The Revenge during the ongoing election period in Tamil Nadu. The case, titled D Rakesh vs Chief Election Commissioner, was heard by a Bench of Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan.
The Court made it clear that once a film has been approved by the censor board, it cannot be stopped just because some people are unhappy with its content. The judges said that freedom of expression must be respected, especially when a competent authority has already examined and cleared the film.
Because of this reasoning, the Court dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) that had requested a ban on the movie’s screening in Tamil Nadu until the results of the 2026 Assembly elections are declared.
“Once the expert body has considered the impact on the public and has cleared the film, merely because a small section of the society has a different view, the exhibition of the film cannot be stalled,”
The petitioner argued that the film was indirectly promoting a political party and could disturb the “level playing field” required during elections. It was claimed that this would go against the Model Code of Conduct (MCC), which restricts the ruling party from using media or public platforms to highlight its achievements during election time.
The petitioner also submitted that the Election Commission of India has a constitutional duty under Article 324 to ensure free and fair elections. It was further argued that authorities under the Cinematograph Act, 1952 should check whether showing such a film during the MCC period is appropriate.
However, the Court did not agree with these arguments. It noted that the film had already been released on March 21 in Tamil and had been widely shown across the State. Importantly, the petitioner had not challenged the certification given by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC).
The Bench observed that once a film is certified, there is a legal presumption that all necessary guidelines, including public order concerns, have been properly considered by the authority.
The Court also highlighted that films are a form of expression protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. It stated that stopping the screening of a certified film would violate this fundamental right unless the certification itself is legally challenged and set aside.
Further, the judges clarified that fears about law and order cannot be used as a reason to stop a film. Instead, it is the responsibility of the State to maintain peace and ensure that public order is not disturbed.
Based on these observations, the Court dismissed the plea and allowed the continued screening of the film.
The petitioner was represented by advocates Pranjal and R Rajakumaran. The Election Commission of India and the Chief Electoral Officer of Tamil Nadu were represented by Standing Counsel Niranjan Rajagopalan.
Case Title:
D Rakesh Vs Chief Election Commissioner
Click Here to Read More Reports On Dhurandhar 2
