Back
Madras HC Dismisses Plea to Halt Dhurandhar 2 During TN Polls
In a swift ruling on
, the
dismissed
seeking to restrain the screening of the blockbuster film
Dhurandhar 2: The Revenge
in Tamil Nadu until the conclusion of the state assembly elections. The bench, led by
Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari
and
Justice G Arul Murugan
, underscored that no law prohibits movie releases during the enforcement of the
, particularly since the petitioners failed to challenge the certification issued by the
. Case cited:
D Rakesh v The Chief Election Commissioner and Others
(WP 14335 of 2026; 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 156). The court's oral remark—
"What is the law that a movie cannot be released when the Model Code of Conduct is in place?"
—captures the essence of its rejection of the pleas, clearing the path for the Ranveer Singh-starrer to continue its theatrical run amid heightened electoral sensitivities.
This decision not only resolves an immediate controversy surrounding a commercially explosive film but also delineates critical boundaries between election regulations and cultural expression, offering valuable precedents for legal practitioners navigating similar intersections.
Background: The Film and Electoral Context
Dhurandhar 2: The Revenge , directed by Aditya Dhar and starring Ranveer Singh, has emerged as one of 2026's biggest box-office hits, grossing over ₹500 crore within three days of its release. Distributed across theatrical and digital platforms, the action thriller draws attention for its narrative on counter-terrorism, money laundering crackdowns, and high-stakes India-Pakistan tensions—themes some interpret as subtly glorifying the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)-led central government's security achievements.
The controversy erupted against the backdrop of Tamil Nadu's assembly elections, where the MCC—enforced by the
—is in full swing. The MCC comprises guidelines to ensure free and fair polls, with
specifically targeting the party in power to prevent misuse of state resources for electoral gain.
states verbatim:
"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."
Petitioners argued this extended to private mass media like films, positioning Dhurandhar 2 as indirect BJP propaganda. One counsel went further, labeling the movie "war-mongering" and linking it to communal violence in northern India, urging a complete halt to screenings until vote counting concludes.
The Petitions: Arguments on MCC Violations
The lead petitioner, D Rakesh, impleaded filmmakers Adithya Dhar, Lokesh Dhar, and producer Jyoti Deshpande, alongside the Chief Election Commissioner. The core contention was that the film's content violated the MCC's spirit by advertising the ruling party's "achievements" via mass media during polls. Despite Clause 4 referencing "public exchequer," counsel creatively interpreted it broadly to encompass any media amplifying the central or state ruling party's narrative, arguing private films like this one could sway voters in BJP-allied contexts.
A secondary plea amplified risks: the film's alleged calls for India-Pakistan war had already sparked riots elsewhere, potentially inflaming Tamil Nadu's diverse polity. Without naming specific statutes beyond the MCC, petitioners sought , framing the release as a threat to electoral integrity. This echoed past challenging political ads or biopics during elections, though none directly mirrored a certified blockbuster's fate.
Court's Bench and Oral Observations
Hearing the matter on Friday, April 10, the division bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan cut through the arguments decisively. Noting the unchallenged CBFC 'U/A' or equivalent certificate—mandatory under the
—the court questioned the legal basis for intervention.
"The CBFC has given a certificate. It's not challenged. Unless that is challenged, nothing can be done. The statutory body has permitted,"
the bench remarked orally, signaling
to specialized regulators.
The court dismissed the MCC linkage outright, observing no provision bars private cinematic releases during elections. It promised a detailed order later but closed proceedings, refusing directions to filmmakers or exhibitors.
Judicial Reasoning and Dismissal
At its heart, the ruling pivots on procedural and substantive thresholds. First, procedural: Absent a direct assault on the CBFC's certification via writ under , courts cannot second-guess content suitability. The CBFC, empowered under , examines films for public exhibition, balancing free speech with decency, security, and sovereignty safeguards.
Substantively, the MCC—non-statutory ECI directives upheld in cases like S. Subramaniam Balaji v Govt. of Tamil Nadu (2013)—binds governments, not private entities. Extending it to certified films would invite , censoring art sans evidence of direct incitement (contra or restrictions). The bench's restraint aligns with Kaushal Kishor (2023), limiting speech curbs to
Legal Framework: MCC, CBFC, and Constitutional Angles
Delving deeper, the MCC's targets "official mass media," distinguishing state-sponsored publicity from private ventures. Petitioners' "idea" extension falters against Union of India v Naveen Jindal (2014), where courts clarified guidelines aren't enforceable code without statutory backing. CBFC's role is pivotal: Post- NK Bajpai v Union of India (2000), certifications presume compliance unless judicially invalidated.
Constitutionally, protects films as speech, per KA Abbas v Union of India (1970). Election-time curbs require " "—a high bar unmet here. War-mongering claims invoke (promoting enmity), but demand proof of electoral corruption, not mere thematic overlap. This ruling reinforces Directorate General of Doordarshan v Anand Patwardhan (2006), prioritizing certification over ad-hoc bans.
Comparatively, bans on The Kashmir Files or The Kerala Story faced scrutiny but survived CBFC nods. Tamil Nadu's context—Dravidian politics vs BJP expansion—adds spice, yet courts prioritize law over perception.
Broader Analysis: Implications for Election Law and Free Speech
This dismissal signals judicial wariness of "over-broad" PILs during polls, potentially curbing frivolous challenges to entertainment. For film producers, it's a green light: Certified releases proceed unimpeded, shielding against ECI overreach. Election lawyers note it bolsters arguments against analogous digital content (OTT platforms under ).
Critically, it spotlights MCC gaps—non-binding status limits bite, prompting calls for statutory elevation (as debated in 2024 Law Commission reports). Free speech advocates hail it; poll watchdogs decry laxity on subtle propaganda. In TN, with AIADMK-DMK binaries, BJP-themed films test neutrality, but courts demand evidence, not inference.
Potential Future Challenges and Precedents
Expect appeals to Supreme Court under Article 136, testing if MCC evolves via "misuse of media." Parallelly, ECI advisories to platforms may tighten, post- Tehseen Poonawalla v Union of India (2018) hate speech curbs. For practitioners: Challenge CBFC first; marshal riot causality data; invoke RPA over MCC.
Industry-wise, Dhurandhar 2 's ₹500cr haul underscores commercial stakes—legal victories preserve revenues. Globally, akin to US First Amendment shields for political films ( Citizens United v FEC , 2010).
Conclusion: Key Takeaways for Practitioners
Madras HC's verdict in WP 14335/2026 fortifies statutory silos: ECI for polls, CBFC for content. Legal professionals should counsel clients on certification primacy, MCC's governmental ambit, and evidentiary rigour in speech challenges. As elections rage, this ruling tempers populism with principle, safeguarding expression sans electoral anarchy. Detailed order awaited, but oral cues promise enduring clarity.
