There Were & Are Corrupt Judges; Portrayal Of Fictional Corrupt Court Not Criminal Contempt: Madras High Court Dismisses Plea Seeking Ban Of Film Karuppu
The Court remarked that judicial institutions should be made of stronger stuff & remarked that judges need not be treated as “holy cows” immune from criticism.
Justice G.R. Swaminathan, Justice V. Lakshminarayanan, Madras High Court
The Madras High Court has refused to direct a ban on Tamil film Karuppu in theatres or on OTT platforms, holding that the portrayal of corruption involving a fictional judge and courtroom does not amount to criminal contempt and cannot justify judicial censorship once the film has been certified by the Central Board of Film Certification. The Bench also remarked that there were, and still are Judges who are corrupt.
The Bench made the observation while dismissing a plea objecting to the film’s depiction of a corrupt presiding judge and an unethical lawyer wielding influence inside an imaginary “Seven Wells Court”. Emphasising artistic freedom, the Court noted that Tamil cinema often employs deliberate exaggeration and melodrama, and remarked that judges need not be treated as “holy cows” immune from criticism. It held that criticism or even sharp fictional portrayal of judges and courts, without reference to any real court or falling within statutory restrictions, would remain protected speech under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India.
A Division Bench of Justice G. R. Swaminathan and Justice V. Lakshminarayanan observed, “The unholy alliance between an unethical lawyer and a corrupt Judge is the theme of the movie. One of us (G.R.Swaminathan, J.) has seen the movie in a theatre (the producer was not called upon to arrange any special screening!). 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 is one of a piece. In any event, the artist is entitled to present in his own way. This is what is called as artistic licence…”.
“None can deny there is corruption in the Judiciary. There were and are corrupt Judges…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 (Lord Atkin). But the lack of respect in the movie dialogues would not make any difference to us… Judiciary is not exempt from criticism. Judicial institutions are, and should be made of stronger stuff. Debates of public issues should be uninhibited, robust and wide open. It may well include vehement, sarcastic and sometimes unpleasant sharp criticism of Government and public officials…We would add by including Courts and Judges also. Judges are not above criticism.”, it categorically said.
Advocate M. Senthilkumar appeared for the petitioner and K. Srinivasamoorthy, Senior Panel Counsel appeared for the respondent.
In the matter, the petitioner contended that the film’s portrayal of a corrupt presiding judge and an unethical lawyer exercising influence inside a courtroom lowered the dignity of courts and warranted prohibition. The producers, actors and the Central Board of Film Certification were arrayed as respondents, with the Court ultimately examining whether the fictional portrayal could justify censorship or amount to criminal contempt.
The Court noted that cinema enjoys constitutional protection under Article 19(1)(a), and observed that artistic works are entitled to a wider latitude, including exaggeration, satire and fictionalisation.
“Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India explicitly declares that all citizens shall have the right to freedom of speech and expression. The freedom of expression means the right to express one’s opinion by words of mouth, writing, printing, picture or in any other manner. It would include the freedom of communication and the right to propagate or publish opinion. The communication of ideas could be made through any medium, newspaper, magazine or movie”, it noted.
The Court held that criminal contempt under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act requires scandalising or lowering the authority of an actual court. Since Karuppu portrayed proceedings inside an entirely fictional “Seven Wells Court,” the statutory threshold was not met. The Bench observed that depiction of corruption in an imaginary court could not automatically be equated with contempt of a real judicial institution.
While noting that the film may dramatise and exaggerate events, the Court held that exaggeration is inherent to cinema and cannot by itself become a ground for censorship. It added that courts must protect expression not only when it is agreeable or flattering, but equally when it provokes discomfort or criticism.
“What applies to a cartoonist would apply to a movie-maker also. He presents a story through the medium of cinema. There will be exaggeration. There will be inaccuracies. It can be an outright fiction also. It may contain a message or it can stop with entertainment alone. The manner of presentation and the content of presentation must be left to the creator. So long as the author does not venture into forbidden territories, the creative spirit must be respected”, the Bench noted.
Holding that no ground existed for issuing a writ of mandamus to ban or regulate the film, the High Court dismissed the petition.
Cause Title: R.S. Tamilvendan The Secretary to the State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. WP No. 20286 of 2026
Appearances:
Petitioner: M. Senthilkumar, Advocate.
Respondent: M. Murali, Government Advocate, K. Srinivasamoorthy, Senior Panel Counsel.