Madras High Court directs TN govt to provide protection for Vijay Devarakonda's 'Kingdom' amid protests
Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy issued the directive stating that the movie makers have the right to express their views and none can disrupt screening of a movie, which is duly certified by the Censor Board, nor threaten the theatre owners against screening.
The court further added that those who have different views can express them through protests but should obtain permission from the Police and hold the stir only at the designated venues. It would be open for them to protest and propagate their own view against the movie's content. 'That liberty is always available to express any contrary view in a democracy, and therefore, the right of the respondent is not curtailed.'
'In a democracy, the creators of a movie have every right to express their views and in this case, it is a fiction, therefore, anything expressed in any movie may be abhorrent and unpalatable to a particular section of the society. Even then, when the censor board cleared the movie for being exhibited in theatre, no third party can prevent its exhibition or threaten the theatre owners,' said Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy on Thursday while disposing of a petition filed by SSI Productions, the producers of 'Kingdom', seeking protection to the theatres.
The judge recollected the orders passed by a division bench of Madras High Court in the Perumal Murugan case stating it is better to put the book down or refrain from watching the movie.
Justice Chakravarthy recorded the undertaking given by the government advocate on behalf of the police that they will give due protection to the theatres.
He further stated the Police can take appropriate action, if the screening of the movie is disrupted or any theatre owners are threatened against exhibiting the movie by any person.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NDTV
41 minutes ago
- NDTV
"Will Vacate Official Residence On Time Post Retirement": Chief Justice BR Gavai
New Delhi: Chief Justice of India B R Gavai on Thursday said due to time constraints he would not be able to find a suitable house by the time he retires in November and "for sure vacate" his official residence within the time period allowed under the rules. Bidding farewell to outgoing Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, who is set to superannuate on August 9, the CJI at an event organised by Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association (SCAORA) called him a "warm person" who dedicated his career to the judiciary. Speaking to an audience comprising judges of the top court and high court aside from senior lawyers and their family members the CJI said Justice Dhulia would vacate his official residence, a day after his retirement. "We will always remember his contribution to the judiciary. After retirement, he is going to be in Delhi, and he'll be one of the judges who will be vacating the house immediately. On the next day of his retirement," the CJI said. Interestingly, a month ago in an unprecedented move, the Supreme Court administration wrote to the Centre to vacate the official residence of the Chief Justice of India at Krishna Menon Marg in Delhi, noting former CJI DY Chandrachud had stayed beyond the permissible period. Earlier in August, however, Justice Chandrachud vacated the official residence of the head of the judiciary. Referring to his and Justice Dhulia's situation, the CJI said, "As a matter of fact, that's a rarity. I wish I would also be in a position to do it till November 24. I won't find time to find a suitable house, but I can assure you that whatever time is permissible as per the rules, I'll be shifting before that. But Justice Dhulia has set a very good example. I am sure that many of us can emulate him." Justice Dhulia was a part of numerous judgements in the apex court, including the hijab ban case from Karnataka in which he dissented with the majority view and held there should be no restriction on the wearing of hijab anywhere in the schools and colleges of the state. When speakers lauded the verdict, Justice Dhulia said, "Let me tell you I was not defending the Hijab. What I was defending was the choice of women to wear Hijab. If I have a judicial philosophy, then I can only say that my judicial philosophy is everything is around the human being. Everything which is for the benefit of a human being is my judicial philosophy." The outgoing judge lauded the contributions of advocates-on-record and asked them to gear up for "their importance rises with the rise in litigation" and indicated that he would speak more on Friday, his last working day. In April, a bench headed by Justice Dhulia ruled Urdu language was born in this land and described it as the finest specimen of "Ganga Jamuni tahzeeb". The bench said considering it a language of Muslims was a "pitiable digression" from reality and unity in diversity. Justice Dhulia was born on August 10, 1960 and completed schooling in Dehradun, Allahabad and Lucknow. He was elevated as a permanent Judge of Uttarakhand High Court on November 1, 2008 and took oath as the Chief Justice of Gauhati High Court on January 10, 2021 before being elevated to the top court on May 9, 2022. PTI MNL MNL AMK AMK
The Hindu
an hour ago
- The Hindu
13 Allahabad High Court judges urge Chief Justice to not follow Supreme Court's directive
Three days after the Supreme Court issued a scathing order barring an Allahabad High Court judge from hearing criminal cases until his retirement, several judges of the High Court have come out in support of their fellow judge opposing the implementation of the apex court's directive. Thirteen judges of the Allahabad High Court have written to Chief Justice Arun Bhansali, requesting the convening of a Full Court meeting and urging that the apex court's order removing Justice Prashant Kumar from the criminal roster not be implemented. The letter was circulated on Thursday (August 7, 2025), even as the Supreme Court relisted the case in which it made the remarks against Justice Kumar for allowing criminal proceedings in a civil dispute case. 'The Full Court resolves that direction made in para 24 to 26 in the subject order dated August 4, 2025 is not to be complied with as the Supreme Court does not have administrative superintendence over the High Courts,' the letter said. The High Court judges also recorded their 'anguish in respect of tone and tenor of said order'. On August 4, 2025, a Supreme Court Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan had reprimanded Justice Kumar for 'cutting a sorry figure for himself' and making 'a mockery of justice'. The apex court had taken stern exception to Justice Kumar finding nothing wrong in a litigant filing a criminal case against a buyer in a purely civil dispute over an unpaid balance of money in a sale transaction. The Bench said the High Court judge had found nothing wrong in allowing a criminal case for 'criminal breach of trust' registered in the civil dispute. 'We are at our wits' end to understand what is wrong with the Indian judiciary at the level of the High Court. At times we are left wondering whether such orders are passed on some extraneous considerations or it is sheer ignorance of law. Whatever it be, passing of such absurd and erroneous orders is something unpardonable,' the Bench said. The Indian legal system has been witnessing a troubling trend of the increasing misuse of criminal law in matters that are fundamentally civil in nature. This tendency has been seen in civil disputes, such as money recovery, cheque bounce case, contractual disagreements, inheritance, property partitions, commercial transactions and others. In April this year, then Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna came down heavily on the Uttar Pradesh government over the growing trend of ordinary civil disputes being converted into criminal cases. His remarks came during the hearing of an appeal filed by two individuals facing a cheque bounce case, who were also slapped with criminal charges, including breach of trust, intimidation, and criminal conspiracy.
New Indian Express
2 hours ago
- New Indian Express
13 Allahabad HC judges urge Chief Justice to defy SC order, barring colleague from hearing criminal cases
LUCKNOW: In an unprecedented move, 13 judges of the Allahabad High Court have taken strong exception to the observations made by a division bench of the Supreme Court concerning a sitting judge of the High Court. In a letter dated August 7, 2025, addressed to the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court, the judges urged the convening of a full court meeting to defy the Supreme Court's August 4 order, which stripped Justice Prashant Kumar of his criminal roster until his retirement. The judges argued that the Supreme Court lacks administrative superintendence over High Courts and, therefore, the directions in paragraphs 24 to 26 of the apex court's order—pertaining to Justice Kumar—should not be complied with. They further called upon the full court to formally record its displeasure regarding the tone and tenor of the Supreme Court's remarks. A full court meeting, typically reserved for matters of significant legal or constitutional importance, involves the presence of all or a substantial number of the court's judges. The Supreme Court's division bench, comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan, had sharply criticized an order passed by Justice Prashant Kumar, in which he directed the Allahabad High Court Chief Justice to assign him to a division bench alongside a senior judge. The apex court also mandated that no criminal cases be allotted to Justice Kumar henceforth. The letter, initiated by Justice Arindam Sinha in his individual capacity, expressed shock and dismay over the Supreme Court's observations. It stated that the remarks against Justice Kumar violated the principles established by the Supreme Court itself in Amar Pal Singh v. State of UP (2012), which emphasized judicial restraint when commenting on officers unable to defend themselves. The letter further defended Justice Kumar's order, citing precedents set by the Supreme Court in Lee Kun Hee v. State of UP and Sayed Askari Hadi Ali Augustine Imam v. State (Delhi Administration). Additionally, the judges objected to the Supreme Court's suggestion that Justice Kumar's order might have been influenced by "extraneous considerations" or "sheer ignorance," calling the insinuations unfounded and baseless. The letter, circulated under Chapter III, Rule 9 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952, garnered the signatures of 12 other judges, underscoring the collective discontent within the High Court over the Supreme Court's intervention.
