Artistic Freedom Cannot Override Constitutional Limits Where Film Undermines Religious Harmony: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court recently observed that while artistic freedom deserves a wide degree of latitude, it cannot override the constitutional restrictions under Article 19(2) where a film is found to undermine cultural and religious harmony, upholding the Central Board of Film Certification's (CBFC) refusal to certify the Tamil film, Lakshmi Lawrance Kadhal.

The bench of Justice R. Kalaimathi made the observation while dismissing an appeal filed by the film's producer, Youreka Cinema School, challenging the CBFC's refusal certificate issued in September and December 2025.

Court underscored that freedom of speech and expression occupies a "pioneer position" in a democratic society and forms the bedrock of other liberties. However, it added that the right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) remains subject to the reasonable restrictions contained in Article 19(2) of the Constitution.

"When we talk about Article 19(1)(a), the appellant's freedom to make a film is also subject to the restrictions under Article 19(2) of the Constitution of India," court observed.

The judge emphasised that constitutional rights must be read alongside the fundamental duties under Article 51A, particularly the obligation to promote harmony, preserve India's composite culture and uphold constitutional values.

Referring to Dr B.R. Ambedkar's closing speech in the Constituent Assembly, court observed that liberty, equality and fraternity form an inseparable trinity essential to democracy.

The producer had argued that the CBFC's refusal order was cryptic, violated principles of natural justice and infringed the filmmaker's right to freedom of speech and expression. It was further contended that even if certain portions of the film were objectionable, the Board ought to have suggested excisions or modifications instead of refusing certification altogether.

Rejecting these submissions, court held that the producer had been afforded an opportunity to present his case before both the Examining Committee and the Revising Committee. It therefore found no violation of the principles of natural justice.

Court also rejected the contention that the refusal certificate lacked reasons. Although the Revising Committee's order comprised only a few lines, court held that the reasons for refusal had been adequately stated and could not be termed cryptic.

Significantly, court deferred to the CBFC's assessment of the film, observing that the Board was "more conscious of the need to maintain the cultural and religious beliefs and practices of the citizens of India".

It found no reason to interfere with the conclusions reached by the Examining Committee and the Revising Committee, both of which had concluded that the film's portrayal violated the certification guidelines and was likely to adversely affect the social fabric.

Court also accepted the CBFC's stand that the objectionable theme permeated the film and was not confined to isolated scenes.

Referring to the film's storyline, it noted that the narrative consistently revolved around the relationship between the Hindu heroine Lakshmi and the Christian protagonist Lawrance, with the latter repeatedly asking Lakshmi to perform Bharatanatyam to Christian devotional songs. Since this narrative continued almost throughout the film, court held that excision or modification was not a feasible alternative to refusal.

"It is not easy for persons belonging to a particular sect to accept portrayals that may affect their cultural, religious beliefs and practices," court emphasised.

At the same time, court reiterated settled principles governing film censorship, observing that making a film is a form of artistic expression protected under Article 19(1)(a).

It said a filmmaker is entitled to express ideas in a manner not prohibited by law and that every film must be judged in its entirety from the perspective of an ordinary viewer rather than by isolating individual scenes.

Court referred to several Supreme Court decisions, including S. Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram (1989), Directorate of Film Festivals v. Gaurav Ashwin Jain (2007), Bobby Art International (Bandit Queen) and Nachiketa Walhekar v. CBFC (1996)4, while outlining the balance between artistic freedom and permissible restrictions.

However, applying those principles to the facts of the present case, court concluded that the film's portrayal of religious beliefs and practices attracted the restrictions under Article 19(2).

It held that the CBFC's finding that the film portrayed one belief system in a negative light while presenting another as emancipatory, thereby affecting the social fabric, did not warrant judicial interference.

Finding no infirmity or perversity in the decisions of the Examining Committee or the Revising Committee, the high court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the refusal certificate issued to Lakshmi Lawrance Kadhal.

Case Title: Youreka Cinema School vs. The Chairman, Central Board of Film Certification & Anr.

Bench: Justice R. Kalaimathi

Judgment Date: April 28, 2026