“Judges Are Not Holy Cows”: Madras High Court on Film Depicting Corrupt Judge

Observing that “there were and are corrupt judges” and that judges are “not holy cows”, the Madras High Court has refused to ban Tamil film “Karuppu”, which depicts a corrupt judge and an unethical lawyer manipulating judicial functioning.

Court held that merely because a film portrays corruption in the judiciary or criticises courts in harsh terms, it cannot be prohibited once it has been cleared by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC). Stressing that the judiciary is not immune from criticism, the bench said freedom of speech protects even expression that may be uncomfortable or unpleasant.

A division bench of Justice G.R. Swaminathan and Justice V. Lakshminarayanan made the observations while dismissing a public interest litigation filed by advocate R.S. Tamilvendan seeking a direction to ban or regulate the screening of “Karuppu” in theatres and on OTT platforms.

The petitioner had claimed that the movie damaged the dignity and majesty of courts by portraying a corrupt judicial officer and an unethical advocate exercising influence over the judicial system.

Rejecting the plea, court said, “None can deny there is corruption in the Judiciary. There were and are corrupt Judges".

Also Read| CBFC Has No Power to Reopen Certification After Approval: Madras High Court on Jana Nayagan

The bench, however, clarified that it was not endorsing sweeping allegations against the institution. It noted that the judiciary itself regularly acts against corrupt elements within the system and referred to past observations of the Supreme Court acknowledging corruption in judicial institutions.

The judges noted that the film’s central theme was the “unholy alliance between an unethical lawyer and a corrupt Judge". One of the judges also recorded in the order that he had personally watched the movie in a theatre and found that though the portrayal was exaggerated, exaggeration and melodrama were intrinsic to Tamil cinema.

Are judges beyond criticism?

Answering this question, the bench said criticism of judges and judicial institutions cannot automatically be treated as contempt or grounds for censorship.

“Judges need not be treated as holy cows,” court remarked while emphasising that debates on public institutions must remain “uninhibited, robust and wide open.”

The bench relied on a series of Supreme Court decisions to underline that freedom of speech includes the right to make outspoken, unpleasant and even sharp criticism of courts and judges.

Also Read| CBFC Moves Supreme Court With Caveat In Certification Dispute Over Thalapathy Vijay’s Film Jana Nayagan

Referring to earlier rulings, court observed that respect for the judiciary cannot be secured by shielding judges from criticism and that courts must possess “broad shoulders” while dealing with public commentary.

The judges also noted that cinema, satire and cartoons inherently involve exaggeration and distortion. Comparing filmmakers to cartoonists, the bench said artistic works often push boundaries and are entitled to greater constitutional protection.

“A film is a creation of art. An artist has his own freedom to express himself in a manner which is not prohibited in law,” court said, adding that creativity should not be interfered with unless it enters constitutionally prohibited territory.

Writ courts cannot replace the censor board’s view

Court further held that once a statutory expert body like the CBFC has certified a film for public exhibition, writ courts should ordinarily refrain from interfering with that decision.

The bench referred to Section 5B of the Cinematograph Act, 1952, which allows refusal of certification if a movie affects public order, morality, decency or amounts to contempt of court.

However, the judges pointed out that the CBFC had already cleared “Karuppu” and had not found it contemptuous.

“When the Censor Board itself was not of the view that the film involves contempt of court and had issued certificate, the writ court will not substitute its opinion,” the bench held.

Also Read|Delhi HC Declines to Entertain PIL Against CBFC Certification for The Taj Story, Says ‘Are We Super Censor Board?’

The petitioner had also argued that the movie scandalised the judiciary and therefore amounted to criminal contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

Rejecting the contention, court held that the film depicted a fictional court situated in “Seven Wells” and not any existing judicial institution.

“There is no Court called ‘Seven Wells Court’. It is an imaginary one,” the judges observed, comparing it to the fictional village “Malgudi” created by author R.K. Narayan.

Holding that portrayal of corruption in a fictional court would not attract contempt jurisdiction, the bench dismissed the writ petition.

Case Title: R.S. Tamilvendan vs State of Tamil Nadu & Ors

Judgment Date: May 21, 2026

Bench: Justice G.R. Swaminathan and Justice V. Lakshminarayanan