The right to screen a film legally cannot be obstructed by protests; creators can express views through cinema, while dissent must be lawful.

ORDER

This writ petition is filed for a mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 3 herein to provide adequate police protection to the theatres to enable the peaceful and uninterrupted screening of the film “Kingdom” and to further restrain the fourth respondent and his followers from interfering with the lawful screening of the film based on the petitioner's representation dated 05.08.2025.

2. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner would submit that the movie was originally shot in Telugu language and now what is released is only a dubbed version. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is entirely a fiction and it is not their intention to show any community in poor light or to degrade anybody. The learned counsel would further submit that the fourth respondent and its party members are indulging in violent activities for preventing persons from watching the said movie, by demonstrating inside the theatres and in some places even the posters/ banners of the said movie were damaged. He would further submit that the theatre owners are being threatened to take off the said movie and further when the petitioner has got a valuable right to release its movie in various theatres, it is the duty of the respondents 1 to 3 to grant protection in respect thereof.

3. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3 would submit that the movie is running from 31.07.2025, wherever any illegal acts are committed and it is reported, cases have been registered against the persons, who have committed the offences and actions have been taken. He would further submit that there is no threat for the theatre owners in general to take off the movie and the movie is still being screened and is being run by the theatre owners. Even hereafter, if any unlawful activities is done by anybody, the same will be prevented and necessary police protection will also be given.

4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the fourth respondent would submit that the said movie wrongly portrays as if the entire Srilankan Tamils are migrants and they are generally indulging in smuggling. Therefore, when the content of the movie is in such a manner to defame and vilify the entire Tamil community and their basic rights, the fourth respondent party is only trying to demonstrate peacefully and to express their contrary views.

5. In a democracy, the creators of the movie have got every right to express their views and it is their specific case that the movie is a fiction. Therefore anything expressed in any movie, may be abhorrent and unpalatable to a particular section of the society or even for the majority. Even then, when the Censor Board has cleared the said movie for being exhibited in theatres, no third party can prevent the exhibition of the movie or threaten the theatre owners. If you don't like a movie or a book, the law in this regard has been settled by the Division Bench of this Court in S. Tamilselvan and another vs. The Government of Tamil Nadu and others [2016 SCC online Mad 5960], better keep the book down or don't watch the movie.

6. At the same time, the fourth respondent being a political party and the issue that is complained of being general in nature, if they want to conduct any peaceful protest in order to express their dissent in respect of the views expressed in the movie, they have got every right to obtain permission of the police and protest in the places earmarked for protesting. It will be open for them to protest and to propagate their view, that the views expressed in the movie are not the facts. That liberty to express contrary views is intrinsic to our democracy.

7. In view of the above, it is made clear that the right of the fourth respondent to protest in accordance with law is not curtailed by this order and at the same time, the undertaking given by the respo