None can deny that there is corruption in the judiciary, the Madras High Court recently observed while refusing to ban Karuppu, a Tamil film which involves a portrayal of corruption in a trial court [Tamilvendan Vs State of Tamil Nadu].

A Bench of Justices GR Swaminathan and V Lakshminarayanan made the observation while dismissing a petition filed by advocate RS Tamilvendan.

The petitioner had alleged that the film Karuppu portrayed courts in a damaging manner and scandalised the judicial system.

“None can deny there is corruption in the judiciary. There were and are corrupt judges," said the Court while dismissing the petition.

The Bench also said that courts and judges are not above criticism.

“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,” the Court observed.

The Court also referred to former Chief Justice of India SP Bharucha’s statement at a legal conference in Kerala's Kollam, where he had implied that 20 per cent of judges in the country were corrupt.

It also took note of a “startling statement” made in the matter by Senior Advocate Shanti Bhushan and his son, advocate Prashant Bhushan. The Bench clarified that it was not endorsing such sweeping statements.

“We would not go that far. We refuse to even endorse such sweeping statements,” the Court said.

However, the Bench added that it would not deny that there have been corrupt judges in the system.

"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 Court said.

The petition before the Court sought directions to the Tamil Nadu government, the Information and Public Relations Department and the Central Board of Film Certification to ban or regulate Karuppu in theatres and on OTT platforms.

The fourth respondent, Dream Warrior Pictures, is the producer of the movie. RJ Balaji is the director. Actors Suriya and Trisha star in prominent roles.

The Court noted that the movie is set in a court located in a place called Seven Wells. The presiding officer of the court is shown as corrupt and an unethical advocate wields immense power over the functioning of the court.

The Bench, however, held that such a portrayal could not be a ground to ban the film.

It noted that the “unholy alliance” between an unethical lawyer and a corrupt judge was the theme of the movie. Justice Swaminathan, who authored the order, also recorded that he watched the film.

“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 Court said.

The Bench added that an artist is entitled to present a story in his own way, and that artistic licence must be placed on a high pedestal.

The Court relied on several Supreme Court judgments on artistic freedom and freedom of speech, 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 Indibily Creative v. State of West Bengal.

The Bench further held that once the Central Board of Film Certification had cleared the film, the court would not substitute its own opinion and direct a ban in a public interest litigation.

On the petitioner’s argument that the movie amounted to criminal contempt of court, the Bench said contempt law must be interpreted narrowly when freedom of speech and expression is at stake. It noted that the film was set in an imaginary court called “Seven Wells Court."

“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 Court held.

The Bench further noted that the director had not portrayed the entire judicial system as corrupt.

It, therefore, dismissed the petition.

Advocate M Senthilkumar appeared for the petitioner

Government Advocate M Murali appeared for the State authorities.

Senior Panel Counsel K Srinivasamoorthy appeared for the Central government/ CBFC.

[Read Judgment]