The Madras High Court refused to ban the Tamil film Karuppu, observing that portraying judicial corruption and criticising the judiciary cannot automatically amount to contempt, while emphasising that judges are not beyond scrutiny and freedom of artistic expression must be protected in a democratic society.
In a significant ruling on artistic freedom and freedom of expression, the Madras High Court recently refused to ban the Tamil film Karuppu, which portrays corruption within the judicial system. While dismissing a petition seeking prohibition of the film’s release and streaming, the Court observed that criticism and depiction of corruption in the judiciary cannot automatically be treated as contemptuous or scandalous.
A Division Bench comprising Justices GR Swaminathan and V Lakshminarayanan passed the order in a petition filed by advocate RS Tamilvendan, who alleged that the movie portrayed courts and judges in a derogatory and damaging manner. According to the petitioner, the film scandalised the judiciary and undermined public confidence in the justice delivery system.
Rejecting the plea, the High Court made a candid observation regarding corruption within institutions, including the judiciary.
The Court while dismissing the petition said,
“None can deny there is corruption in the judiciary. There were and are corrupt judges,”
ALSO READ: Corruption in Judiciary – The Cracks in India’s Justice System
The Bench further emphasised that judges and courts are not beyond criticism in a democratic society and that judicial institutions must remain open to scrutiny and public discussion.
The Court observed,
“Judges need not be treated as holy cows. Justice is not a cloistered virtue; she must be allowed to suffer the scrutiny and respectful even though outspoken comments of ordinary men,”
During the hearing, the Bench referred to past public statements concerning judicial corruption, including remarks made by former Chief Justice of India SP Bharucha at a legal conference in Kollam, Kerala, where he had reportedly indicated that around 20 per cent of judges in the country were corrupt.
The Court also referred to statements previously made by Senior Advocate Shanti Bhushan and advocate Prashant Bhushan concerning corruption in the judiciary. However, the Bench clarified that it was not endorsing such sweeping allegations against the institution as a whole.
The Court clarified,
“We would not go that far. We refuse to even endorse such sweeping statements,”
At the same time, the Bench acknowledged that instances of judicial misconduct have existed and continue to be dealt with institutionally.
The Court added,
“We do know and have come across instances of judicial corruption. The full court of the Madras High Court regularly shows the exit door to such black sheep,”
The petition had sought directions against the Tamil Nadu government, the Information and Public Relations Department, and the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) to either ban the movie or regulate its exhibition in theatres and on OTT platforms.
The film Karuppu has been produced by Dream Warrior Pictures and directed by RJ Balaji. Actors Suriya and Trisha play lead roles in the film. The story reportedly revolves around corruption within a fictional court system and depicts a corrupt presiding officer allegedly operating in nexus with an unethical lawyer.
The Court noted that the movie is set in an imaginary court located in a place called “Seven Wells,” where the judicial officer is portrayed as corrupt while an influential lawyer manipulates the functioning of the court system.
However, the Bench held that fictional portrayal and cinematic exaggeration could not be grounds for banning a film. Justice Swaminathan, who authored the judgment, also recorded that he personally watched the movie before delivering the verdict.
The Court observed,
“It is true that the portrayal of the system in the movie is grossly exaggerated. But that is the way movies are taken in Tamil. The hero will single-handedly vanquish a dozen villains who surround him. Everything is melodramatic in Tamil cinema. Therefore, Karuppu should also be taken as one of a piece,”
The High Court stressed that filmmakers and artists enjoy creative freedom and are entitled to depict stories in their own manner. It observed that artistic licence occupies an important place within constitutional protection for free speech and expression.
The Bench relied upon several landmark Supreme Court judgments dealing with artistic freedom, including S Rangarajan v. P Jagjivan Ram, Prakash Jha Productions v. Union of India, Nachiketa Walhekar v. CBFC, Viacom 18 Media v. Union of India and Indibility Creative v. State of West Bengal.
The Court further held that once the CBFC had certified the film for release, the High Court could not substitute its own views and impose a ban through public interest litigation unless there was a clear legal violation.
Addressing the petitioner’s argument that the film amounted to criminal contempt of court, the Bench ruled that contempt jurisdiction must be exercised cautiously, especially where free speech rights are involved.
The Court noted that the movie does not depict any real court or identifiable judge but is based on an entirely fictional setting.
The Court held,
“There is no court called ‘Seven Wells Court’. It is an imaginary one, just as Malgudi is a fictional village in RK Narayan’s works. When a person presiding over an imaginary Court is portrayed as corrupt, it would not attract the penal provisions contained in Contempt of Courts Act, 1971,”
The Bench also pointed out that the film did not portray the entire judiciary as corrupt and therefore could not be interpreted as an attack on the institution as a whole.
Consequently, the High Court dismissed the petition and allowed the film to continue screening without interference.
Advocate M Senthilkumar appeared for the petitioner, while Government Advocate M Murali represented the State authorities. Senior Panel Counsel K Srinivasamoorthy appeared on behalf of the Central government and the CBFC.
Case Title: Tamilvendan Vs State of TN
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE