Suriya-starrer ‘Karuppu’ movie does not attract contempt law: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court has held that actor Suriya’s latest flick Karuppu portrays the presiding officer of an imaginary court as corrupt and therefore, it would not attract the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 warranting a ban on the movie.

A Division Bench of Justices G.R. Swaminathan and V. Lakshminarayanan dismissed a writ petition filed by R.S. Tamilvendan of Chennai after observing that the case was a textbook example of some feign outrage and a pretence to take offence on innocuous issues.

The judges pointed out that the metropolitan magistrate courts in Chennai were called George Town Courts, Egmore Courts and Saidapet Courts. However, the movie only portrays the presiding officer of a non-existent institution named as Seven Wells court.

“There is no court called Seven Wells court. It is an imaginary one, just as Malgudi is a fictional village in R.K. Narayan’s works. When a person presiding over an imaginary court is portrayed as corrupt, it would not attract the penal provisions contained in Contempt of Courts Act,” the Bench wrote.

Further, highlighting that the film’s director, R.J. Balaji, had not portrayed the entire judicial system as corrupt, the Division Bench said, even otherwise, a writ court could not ban a movie after the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) had not found anything contemptuous in it.

The judges pointed out that Section 5B of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 empowers the CBFC to deny certification for public exhibition of a movie if the board was of the view that either the entire film or any part of it involved defamation or contempt of court.

“Thus, the censor board can decline to grant sanction for public exhibition of a movie on the ground that it involves contempt of court. But 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 said.

Authoring the verdict, Justice Swaminathan also wrote: “Judges need not be treated as holy cows. Justice is not a cloistered virtue; she must be allowed to suffer the scrutiny. The lack of respect in the movie (Karuppu) dialogues would not make any difference to us.”

He observed that the question as to whether a movie involved contempt of court should be examined from the perspective of a calm judge with broad shoulders and not that of a touchy character even though Karuppu had exaggerated the unholy nexus between an unethical lawyer and a corrupt judge.

“It is true that the portrayal of the system in the movie is grossly exaggerated. But that is the way movies are taken in Tamil. The hero will single-handedly vanquish a dozen villains who surround him. Everything is melodramatic in Tamil cinema. Therefore, Karuppu should also be taken as one of a piece,” he wrote.

The judge went on to say: “We are now in the age of social media. Anybody can say anything and get away with it. Therefore, the standards that were evolved in the earlier centuries may no longer hold good. Even if an atrocious statement is made, it would be better to ignore it. The judicial caravan has to move on.”

Quoting a passage from Ramayana in which a frog asks Lord Rama, “When others hurt me, I call your name ‘Rama Rama,’ but when you are the source of trouble who else can I call,” Justice Swaminathan said, the same applies to courts which were expected to protect people’s right to freedom of speech and expression.

“Persons come to court to protect their freedom and liberty against invasion by the State authorities. It is the court which stands as the sentinel on the qui vive, and it ought not to issue any direction to curtail the freedom of the citizens. We protect not only the words we like but also those that we hate,” the judge concluded.