The Madras High Court has recognized the existence of corruption within the judiciary, emphasizing that judges are not immune to criticism. This observation arose during the court’s dismissal of a petition seeking to ban the Tamil film Karuppu, which depicts corruption in a trial court setting. The bench, comprising Justices GR Swaminathan and V Lakshminarayanan, delivered this decision in the case of Tamilvendan Vs State of Tamil Nadu.
The petition, filed by advocate RS Tamilvendan, claimed the film Karuppu portrays the judicial system in a negative light, thereby scandalizing it. Addressing these concerns, the court remarked, “None can deny there is corruption in the judiciary. There were and are corrupt judges.” The court further asserted that neither courts nor judges should be exempt from critique, stating, “Judges need not be treated as holy cows. Justice is not a cloistered virtue; she must be allowed to suffer the scrutiny and respectful, even though outspoken, comments of ordinary men.”
Furthermore, the bench referenced former Chief Justice of India SP Bharucha’s comments at a legal conference in Kollam, Kerala, suggesting that 20 percent of the country’s judges were corrupt. However, the court clarified it did not endorse such broad claims. “We would not go that far. We refuse to even endorse such sweeping statements,” the bench noted, acknowledging that instances of judicial corruption have occurred.
The court highlighted that the Madras High Court actively addresses these issues, often removing corrupt individuals from the bench. The petition had sought directives for the Tamil Nadu government, the Information and Public Relations Department, and the Central Board of Film Certification to prohibit or regulate the film in theaters and on OTT platforms. The fourth respondent, Dream Warrior Pictures, produced the movie, directed by RJ Balaji, featuring prominent actors Suriya and Trisha.
The film is set in a fictional court located in Seven Wells, portraying a corrupt presiding officer and an unethical lawyer exerting undue influence. The bench held that such depictions could not justify banning the film, acknowledging that the “unholy alliance” between a corrupt judge and an unethical advocate serves as the movie’s central theme. Justice Swaminathan, who authored the order, noted that the film’s portrayal is exaggerated, consistent with Tamil cinema’s melodramatic style.
The court emphasized the importance of artistic freedom, referencing several Supreme Court judgments supporting artistic expression and freedom of speech, including S Rangarajan v. P Jagjivan Ram, Prakash Jha Productions v. Union of India, Nachiketa Walhekar v. CBFC, Viacom 18 Media v. Union of India, and Indibily Creative v. State of West Bengal. It concluded that since the film had been cleared by the Central Board of Film Certification, the court would not impose its opinion to ban it in a public interest litigation.
Addressing the petitioner’s argument that the film amounted to criminal contempt of court, the bench stated that contempt law should be interpreted narrowly when it comes to freedom of speech and expression. It pointed out that the court depicted in the film, “Seven Wells Court,” is entirely fictional, akin to the imaginary village of Malgudi in RK Narayan’s writings. Therefore, portraying a corrupt individual in a fictional court does not contravene the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
The court concluded by noting that the director did not depict the entire judicial system as corrupt, leading to the dismissal of the petition. Advocate M Senthilkumar represented the petitioner, Government Advocate M Murali appeared for the State authorities, and Senior Panel Counsel K Srinivasamoorthy represented the Central government/CBFC.
