The Madras High Court on April 10 refused to restrain the screening of movie Dhurandhar: The Revenge during the ongoing election period in Tamil Nadu [D Rakesh Vs Chief Election Commissioner]
A Bench of Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan said that a film certified by censor board cannot be stalled merely because a section of society objects to its content
Thus, the Court dismissed a public interest litigation petition seeking to prohibit the film’s exhibition in Tamil Nadu until the declaration of the 2026 Assembly election results.
"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 Court said.
The petitioner argued that the film amounted to indirect political publicity and violated the “level playing field” requirement under the Model Code of Conduct (MCC), which prohibits the party in power from using public resources or media to promote its achievements during elections.
It was further contended that the Election Commission of India, under Article 324 of the Constitution, has a duty to ensure fairness in the electoral process. It was submitted that authorities under the Cinematograph Act, 1952 should examine whether the continued exhibition of the film during the MCC period was permissible.
However, the Court noted that the film had already been released in Tamil on March 21 and had been widely screened across the State. Crucially, the petitioner had not challenged the certification granted to the film by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC).
Once certification is granted, there is a presumption that the statutory authority has considered all relevant guidelines including concerns of public order, the Bench said.
The Court emphasised that cinema is a protected form of expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, and that preventing exhibition of a certified film would infringe this right unless the certification itself is set aside.
The Bench also underscored that apprehensions of law and order cannot be a ground to restrict screening, reiterating that it is the duty of the State to maintain public order rather than curtail free expression.
Hence, it dismissed the plea.
The petitioner was represented by advocates Pranjal and R Rajakumaran.
The Election Commission of India and Chief Electoral Officer of Tamil Nadu were represented by Standing Counsel Niranjan Rajagopalan.
[Read Order]