CBFC film certification presumed valid; cannot be stalled during elections on objections violating free speech.

The petitioner has filed this writ petition, styled as public interest litigation, seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus to forbear respondent Nos.5 and 6 from exhibiting of the Film Durandhar - The Revenge in the State of Tamil Nadu in all modes whether theatrical, OTT, and otherwise until the declaration of results of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly Elections 2026, on the ground that its continued screening during the Model Code of Conduct (MCC) period constitutes a violation of the level playing field mandate.

2.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the MCC expressly prohibits publicity regarding governmental achievements aimed at furthering the prospects of the party in power, and the film, in substance and effect, constitutes exactly such publicity delivered through the powerful medium of popular cinema and, therefore, it should not be exhibited in Tamil Nadu through any mode till the declaration of the results of the Assembly Elections, 2026.

2.2. It is further submitted that the Election Commission of India has a constitutional duty under Article 324 of the Constitution of India to take all steps necessary to maintain a level playing field among all contesting parties and candidates. He hastened to add that the CBFC and the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting have an independent statutory obligation under the Cinematograph Act, 1952 to examine whether the Film’s continued exhibition during the election period is consistent with certification guidelines.

2.3. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner referring to Clause VII of the Compendium of Instructions on Model Code of Conduct, 2024.

“VII. Party in Power. - The party in power whether at the Centre or in the State or States concerned, shall ensure that no cause is given for any complaint that it has used its official position for the purposes of its election campaign and in particular-

(i) to (iii) ....

(iv) Issue of advertisement at the cost of public exchequer in the newspapers and other media and the misuse of official mass media during the election period for partisan coverage of political news and publicity regarding achievements with a view to furthering the prospects of the party in power shall be scrupulously avoided.”

[emphasis supplied]

3. Even according to the averments contained in the writ petition, the film was released in Tamil dubbing on 21^st March, 2026 and has been widely screened across the State of Tamil Nadu. However, till date, the petitioner has not chosen to challenge the CBFC certification issued to the film. Once the certificate has been issued, there is prima facie a presumption that the authority concerned has taken into account all the Guidelines, including public order.

4. In this regard, it is apposite to refer to the observations of the Supreme Court in Viacom 18 Media (P) Ltd. v. Union of India, (2018) 1 SCC 761 which are as under:

“15. ... The creative content is an insegregable aspect of Article 19(1) of the Constitution. Needless to emphasise, this right is not absolute. There can be regulatory measures. Regulatory measures are reflectible from the language employed under Section 5-B of the Act and the Guidelines issued by the Central Government. Once the parliamentary legislation confers the responsibility and the power on a statutory Board and the Board grants certification, non-exhibition of the film by the States would be contrary to the statutory provisions and infringe the fundamental right of the petitioners. That apart, as we understand at present from para 27 of the judgment in Prakash Jha Productions v. Union of India, (2011) 8 SCC 372, it is the duty and obligation of the State to maintain law and order in the State

16. It