Don't Like a Film? Don't Watch It; Lawful Protest Doesn't Permit Disruption of Censor-Certified Film: Madras High Court

Right to Protest Doesn't Extend to Disrupting Censor-Certified Films, Madras High Court Rules

Chennai: In a significant order reinforcing the freedom of speech and expression for filmmakers, the Madras High Court has ruled that once a film is cleared by the Censor Board, no third party has the right to prevent its exhibition. Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy, while hearing a plea from the producers of the film "Kingdom," observed that those who find a film's content unpalatable have the choice to not watch it, but cannot resort to threats or disruptions.

The court's decision came in a writ petition filed by M/s. SSI Production, seeking police protection for the peaceful screening of their movie "Kingdom." The producers alleged that Mr. Seeman, the chief coordinator of Naam Tamilar Katchi, and his followers were indulging in violent activities, threatening theatre owners, and damaging promotional material to stop the film's exhibition.

Background of the Dispute

The petitioner, M/s. SSI Production, approached the High Court after their film "Kingdom" faced opposition. Their counsel argued that the film, a Telugu-dubbed work of fiction, was not intended to malign any community. They contended that Mr. Seeman's party was unlawfully interfering with their right to exhibit the film, which had been duly certified for public viewing.

Arguments from Both Sides

Petitioner (M/s. SSI Production): The producers asserted their constitutional right to release the film. They detailed instances of violence, including demonstrations inside theatres and damage to banners, creating a climate of fear among theatre owners. They requested a court directive to the state police to provide adequate protection.

Respondents (State Police): The Government Advocate, representing the police, submitted that the film had been running since July 31, 2025. They assured the court that cases had been registered wherever illegal acts were reported and that necessary action would be taken against any future unlawful activities. They recorded an undertaking to provide protection for the film's uninterrupted screening.

Respondent (Mr. Seeman): Counsel for Mr. Seeman argued that the party's actions were a form of peaceful protest. They claimed the film wrongly portrayed Sri Lankan Tamils as migrants involved in smuggling, thereby defaming and vilifying the entire Tamil community. Their demonstrations, they argued, were an expression of their contrary views on the film's content.

Court's Upholding of Artistic Freedom and Lawful Dissent

Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy balanced the filmmaker's right to expression against the political party's right to protest. The court unequivocally stated that the right to express views, even if "abhorrent and unpalatable" to a section of society, is protected once the Censor Board has cleared a film.

Citing the precedent set by a Division Bench in S. Tamilselvan and another vs. The Government of Tamil Nadu [2016], the court reiterated the established legal principle:

"If you don't like a movie or a book... better keep the book down or don't watch the movie."

The judgment clarified that while the right to express dissent is intrinsic to democracy, it must be exercised within the bounds of law. The court held that Mr. Seeman's party is free to conduct peaceful protests in designated areas after obtaining police permission to propagate their views against the film.

Final Order and Implications

The High Court ordered the writ petition by recording the police's undertaking to provide due protection for the screening of "Kingdom" across Tamil Nadu. The court directed the police to take firm action against any individual or group that threatens theatre owners or attempts to disrupt the movie.

This order serves as a crucial reaffirmation that the certification by the Censor Board is the final word on a film's exhibition, and any opposition must be channeled through lawful and democratic means, not through intimidation or violence.