Judiciary Not Above Criticism; Portraying Imaginary Corrupt Court In Films Doesn't Scandalize Real Courts: Madras High Court

"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," Madras High Court, in a significant ruling, held that the portrayal of a corrupt presiding officer and unethical lawyer in a fictional film does not constitute criminal contempt or warrant a ban.

A bench of Justice G.R. Swaminathan and Justice V. Lakshminarayanan observed that judicial institutions must be made of "stronger stuff" and that artistic freedom allows for the exaggeration of systemic flaws.

The petitioner, a practising lawyer named R.S. Tamilvendan, filed a Writ of Mandamus seeking a ban or regulation of the Tamil film ‘Karuppu’ on theater and OTT platforms. He contended that the movie’s portrayal of a corrupt judge and an unethical advocate wielding immense power over a court in "Seven Wells" was highly damaging to the majesty of the courts and the sacred nature of judicial functions.

The primary question before the court was whether the portrayal of corruption within a fictional judicial setting warrants a ban on the continued screening of a movie. The court was also called upon to determine if such a depiction attracts the penal provisions of criminal contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

Artistic License Entitles Creators To Exaggerate Reality

The court began by acknowledging that while the movie’s portrayal of the judicial system might be grossly exaggerated, such melodrama is a staple of cinema. The bench noted that an artist is entitled to present their vision in their own way under the doctrine of "artistic license," which must be placed on a high pedestal as per the Supreme Court’s ruling in Manoharlal Sharma vs. Sanjay Leela Bhansali (2018).

The bench emphasized that an artistic production cannot be tested on the same strict standards as a factual documentary or essay. It observed that artists have greater leverage and freedom, citing Theodor Adorno’s famous line that "Every work of art is an uncommitted crime." The court noted that if creativity is interfered with without a permissible legal basis, it paves the path for the extinction of civilization's values.

"Commitment to free speech involves protecting speech that is palatable as well as speech that we do not want to hear."

Judges Are Not Above Public Scrutiny And Criticism

Rejecting the notion that the judiciary should be shielded from all forms of criticism, the court held that judges are not "holy cows." Relying on Sheela Barse vs. Union of India (1988), the bench observed that criticism of judicial functioning is a "healthy aid for introspection and improvement." It stated that citizens have a privileged right to speak their minds, even if their comments lack exactitude or the best of tastes.

The court further noted that judicial institutions should be robust enough to withstand uninhibited, vehement, and even sarcastic debates on public issues. Citing Foundation Inc vs. ANI Media (P) Ltd (2025), the bench suggested that courts should welcome constructive criticism rather than demanding that everyone "sing the same song," as freedom of expression is the rule in a democracy.

"The question if the movie involves contempt of court should be viewed from the perspective of a calm judge with broad shoulders and not that of a touchy character."

Contempt Law Requires Scandalising Of An Actual Court

Analyzing the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, the bench noted that Section 2(c) defines criminal contempt as an act that "scandalises or lowers the authority of any Court." The court clarified that the use of a capital ‘C’ in the statute implies that the contemnor must have scandalised an actual, existing court of law.

In the present case, the movie unfolds within the precincts of a court located in "Seven Wells," which the court found to be an entirely imaginary location, akin to R.K. Narayan’s fictional village of "Malgudi." The bench held that portraying a presiding officer of a non-existent, fictional court as corrupt cannot attract the penal provisions of the 1971 Act.

"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."

Writ Court Will Not Substitute Opinion Of The Censor Board

The court highlighted that the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) is the expert body empowered under the Cinematograph Act, 1952, to examine films. Since the Censor Board had already cleared the film for public exhibition, the Writ Court refused to substitute its own opinion for that of the expert body, especially since the petitioner had not challenged the clearance certificate itself through a Writ of Certiorari.

Referencing the Prakash Jha Productions (2011) case, the court reiterated that once an expert body clears a film, it is the government's duty to maintain law and order rather than seeking a ban. The bench concluded that as long as the expression does not violate the reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2) of the Constitution of India, the court must stand as a sentinel to protect even the speech that "we hate."

The High Court dismissed the writ petition, finding no grounds to issue a direction for a ban or regulation. The bench remarked that the judicial caravan must move on even in the face of "atrocious" statements, as preserving the dignity of the bench through enforced silence often engenders more resentment than respect.

Date of Decision: 21 May 2026