Silencing the critic: Assault on creators' fundamental rights

Film producers are finding new ways to silence content creators in the market. Movie reviews and commentaries by independent creators on YouTube, Instagram and other social media platforms have always influenced public opinion. As a result, some production houses have started adopting aggressive legal strategies to control them through court-ordered pre-release injunctions, which are masked as anti-piracy injunctions in some cases.

These injunctions are also known as John Doe injunctions, designed to even restrain unnamed parties. They are used to bar persons from telecasting, transmitting, publishing, distributing, or sharing any 'false, malicious, defamatory, derogatory' material about the film. At times, such injunctions prohibit 'challenging feedback,' 'reaction videos,' 'community polls,' 'boycott campaigns,' and 'trolling.' In effect, they can ban honest critical engagement with the film in any online format.

What was originally intended as a legal tool to protect intellectual property and prevent piracy is now being used in ways that threaten freedom of expression and fair criticism.

This year, makers of 3 major movies including Peddi, Ustaad Bhagat Singh and KD: The Devil approached the courts before the release of their films and obtained injunctions against online content related to their movies. These makers hire legal companies as marketing teams as part of broader reputation-management strategies designed to suppress unfavourable commentary during a film's promotional period and then file for injunctions. Then, whatever they feel is not good for their movie and promotes a bad narrative is targeted.

A notable example of this censorship occurred in May 2026. AiPlex, a Bengaluru-based ‘techno legal firm’, sent legal notices to individual creators, including a notice to YouTuber Suraj Kumar on behalf of KVN Productions (producers of KD: The Devil) to restrain alleged defamatory content on his YouTube channel related to their films.

The problem arises with the nature of these orders. Even if the criticism or is not directly directed towards a particular movie, which may be discussed through comments or other means, videos can be taken down through these injunctions. Moreover, these orders include lists of individual creators as well. In some cases, creators have also reportedly found their names included in legal petitions despite never having made a video about the concerned film, which reveals that these movie houses have a targeted list of creators.

Furthermore, most of these orders passed by the courts do not even meet the strict threshold criteria made in the case of Bloomberg Television Production Services India (P) Ltd v. Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd (2024). In this case, the Delhi High Court held that ex parte injunctions against publication must only be granted in exceptional cases where the content is shown to be 'malicious' or 'palpably false’, which is obviously not the case with these creators.

The practical effect of these orders is significant, as platforms like YouTube generally comply with any complaint made by makers as soon as it is received to avoid legal complications. The concerned videos are taken down immediately and creators are forced to defend themselves in court if they wish to challenge the action. Instead of the production house proving that a particular video is unlawful, the burden of proof shifts to the creator after the injunction to demonstrate that their content was fair criticism and protected speech. Most of these individual creators usually don’t have the financial and legal resources as compared to large production companies.

The problem becomes even more serious when one considers the time-sensitive nature of film reviews. The commercial life cycle of a movie is often limited to the first few weeks after release. Reviews and commentary are most relevant during this period because audiences rely on them when deciding whether to watch a film. However, legal disputes over injunctions can take weeks or even months to resolve. By the time a creator succeeds in getting a video restored, the public conversation surrounding the film may have already ended. Even if the creator eventually wins the legal battle, the relevance of the video is lost for the audience. So, this becomes a new way to take away the fundamental right of movie reviewers and commentators on social media.

This is nothing less than a form of indirect censorship. The injunction is not intended to win in court, but is intended to suppress speech during the commercially critical window and then if challenged, be quietly allowed to lapse. While the legal order may not permanently ban speech, it delays publication long enough to make the speech irrelevant.

While false rumours, leaked footage, defamatory allegations and misinformation campaigns can harm a film's commercial prospects, the issue becomes more complex when injunctions extend beyond piracy or clearly defamatory content. Hence, the distinction between criticism and defamation is crucial here.

A movie review is inherently subjective. Different viewers may have completely different opinions about the same film. One reviewer may praise a movie's storytelling, while another may criticise it. Such differences are a normal and essential part of public discourse. Some reviews criticise parts of films as being sexist, racist, etc, which the makers may find uncomfortable. Restricting discussion of these elements undermines the purpose of criticism itself.

These injunctions are creating a chilling effect. When creators see others facing legal notices, takedowns and court proceedings for discussing films, many may choose to avoid critical commentary altogether. The result is self-censorship, not because the criticism is unlawful, but because defending it becomes too costly and time-consuming.

The impact extends beyond the individual creator; even audiences suffer when critical voices are suppressed, as reviews and commentary help viewers make informed decisions whether to watch a particular film or not. As a result of these orders passed by the courts, creators become bound to speak like robots in their reviews and lose a sense of their uniqueness, because if their way of critiquing the movie is not found “appropriate” to these houses, they will be taken through the legal process.

Last year, the Tamil Film Active Producers Association (TFAPA) even approached the Madras High Court to enforce a 3-day ban on all early reviews and commentary from the date of release as it impacted their box office performance.

These injunctions violate Article 19(1)(a) and Article 19(1)(g) by suppressing speech before any finding of unlawfulness and by destroying the commercial value of a lawful occupation, respectively.

The challenge, therefore, is to strike a balance between protecting legitimate commercial interests and preserving free expression. Production houses should have remedies against piracy, misinformation and genuinely defamatory content. At the same time, courts must remain cautious when granting broad pre-publication injunctions that may interfere with lawful criticism and commentary.

Ayush Dubey is a 2nd Year B.Sc. LL.B. (Hons.) [Cybersecurity] student at the National Law Institute University, Bhopal.