Screening of Film Dhurandar Cannot Be Stalled Merely Because a Section of Society Has a Different View: Madras HC Dismisses PIL Seeking Ban During Tamil Nadu Elections [Read Order]

Chennai: A Division Bench of the Madras High Court, comprising Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan, dismissed a Public Interest Litigation seeking a writ of mandamus to restrain the filmmakers and producers of ‘Durandhar: The Revenge’ from exhibiting the film in Tamil Nadu until the declaration of the results of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly Elections, 2026.

The Court held that once a film is granted certification by the Central Board of Film Certification, there is a prima facie presumption that the certifying authority has considered all applicable guidelines, and the exhibition of a certified film cannot be stalled merely because a section of society holds a different view.

The petitioner, D. Rakesh of Madurai, filed the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, styling it as a public interest litigation. The respondents named were the Chief Election Commissioner of India, the Chief Electoral Officer of Tamil Nadu, the Secretary (Information and Broadcasting), Government of India, the Chief Executive Officer of the Central Board of Film Certification, and the filmmakers Aditya Dhar and Lokesh Dhar, along with the presenter and producer Jyoti Deshpande of Jio Studios. The case was heard by the Division Bench on April 10, 2026.

The petitioner’s counsel submitted that the Model Code of Conduct expressly prohibits publicity regarding governmental achievements aimed at furthering the prospects of the party in power, and that the film, in substance and effect, constituted such publicity delivered through the powerful medium of popular cinema. It was also argued that the film should not be exhibited in Tamil Nadu through any mode until the declaration of election results.

It was further submitted that the Election Commission of India has a constitutional duty under Article 324 of the Constitution of India to maintain a level playing field among all contesting parties and candidates, and that the Central Board of Film Certification 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. In support, the petitioner relied upon Clause VII(iv) of the Compendium of Instructions on Model Code of Conduct, 2024, which requires that misuse of official mass media during the election period for partisan coverage and publicity regarding achievements, with a view to furthering the prospects of the party in power, be scrupulously avoided.

The Court noted at the outset that, even according to the petitioner’s own averments, the film was released in Tamil dubbing on March 21, 2026, and had been widely screened across the State of Tamil Nadu. Crucially, the petitioner had not, until the filing of the writ petition, chosen to challenge the CBFC certification issued to the film. The Court held that once a certificate has been issued, there is a prima facie presumption that the certifying authority has taken into account all applicable guidelines, including those relating to public order.

The Court placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court of India in Viacom 18 Media (P) Ltd. v. Union of India, (2018) 1 SCC 761, which held that creative content is an inseparable aspect of Article 19(1) of the Constitution. Although the right is not absolute and regulatory measures are permissible, the Supreme Court had clearly stated that once parliamentary legislation confers responsibility and power on a statutory Board and the Board grants certification, non-exhibition of the film by States would be contrary to statutory provisions and would infringe the fundamental rights of producers and distributors.

The Court further referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Atul Mishra v. Union of India, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 321, which reiterated that once a film is granted a certificate by the competent statutory Board, unless the certificate is nullified or modified by a superior authority, the producer or distributor has every right to exhibit it in a movie hall. The Supreme Court in that case had deprecated the activities of any body, group, association, or individual seeking to prevent the exhibition of a certified film, observing that encouraging such activities would lead to anarchy and cripple the right to freedom of speech and expression.

The Court also referred to the Constitution Bench decision in Union of India v. K.M. Shankarappa, (2001) 1 SCC 582, wherein the Supreme Court held that once an expert body has considered the impact of a film on the public and cleared it, apprehension of a law and order situation cannot be a ground for stalling its exhibition. The responsibility to maintain law and order rests with the State Government, and the executive cannot review or revise the decision of the expert tribunal merely because a small section of society holds a different view and chooses to express it through unlawful means.

Applying the above principles, the Division Bench held that once the expert body has considered the public impact of the film and cleared it, its exhibition cannot be stalled merely because a small section of society holds a different view. The writ petition was accordingly dismissed, with no order as to costs, and the interim application was closed.

For the Petitioner: Mr. Pranjal, Advocate for Mr. R. Rajakumaran
For the Respondents: Mr. Niranjan Rajagopalan, Standing Counsel for Respondents 1 and 2

Case Title: D. Rakesh v. The Chief Election Commissioner and Others, W.P. No. 14335 of 2026, 2026:MHC:1436

[Read Order]