Madras HC rejects plea to ban film reviews, upholds free speech

Hans India

10 hours ago

In a landmark judgment reinforcing the right to free expression, the Madras High Court has dismissed a plea by the Tamil Film Active Producers Association seeking a temporary three-day ban on film reviews post theatrical release. The association had argued that early reviews—especially negative ones—posted on social media and digital platforms were harming box office revenues and shaping public opinion prematurely.
Presiding over the case, Justice N Anand Venkatesh strongly ruled against the petition, stating that such a request was not only impractical in today's digital world but also unconstitutional. He underscored that imposing a blanket restriction on reviews would infringe upon Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression.
'Criticism is inherently subjective,' the judge remarked. 'Just because someone disapproves of a film does not mean everyone will agree. In the same way that judges are critiqued on social media, filmmakers must also be open to differing opinions.'
Justice Venkatesh further noted the logistical and legal difficulties of implementing such a ban in the age of global digital communication. 'How can this court stop someone in Azerbaijan or any other part of the world from sharing their views?' he questioned, stressing the futility of attempting to regulate online speech across borders.
The court also took a subtle jab at the expectation of universally positive reviews, calling it 'unrealistic' and 'detached from reality.' Instead, the verdict advised producers to invest in quality storytelling and filmmaking rather than attempting to suppress criticism.
The judgment comes at a time when film industries across India—including in Telugu cinema—have been mulling similar legal approaches to delay or regulate early reviews. The court's ruling is now being seen as a benchmark that protects the independence of film critics and online reviewers.
Speaking to Hans India, Senior film reviewer Ch Srinivas said, 'This is a significant win for creative dialogue. Reviews—good or bad—are part of the artistic ecosystem. You can't have a thriving industry without accountability or conversation.'
The verdict serves as a reminder that public discourse, especially around art and culture, is a cornerstone of democracy. In a media-driven society where audience engagement begins the moment a trailer drops, curbing opinions post-release is neither ethical nor enforceable.
As the court rightly pointed out, the film industry would do better to address systemic issues such as content quality, piracy, and distribution challenges—rather than chasing after critics. The focus, as many now agree, must return to where it belongs: creating compelling cinema.