Latest news with #S.Seeman
The Hindu
5 days ago
- Entertainment
- The Hindu
Vijay Deverakonda-starrer Kingdom's distributor approaches Madras High Court seeking police protection for theatres in Tamil Nadu
The Tamil Nadu theatrical rights holder of Vijay Deverakonda starrer 'Kingdom' has approached the Madras High Court to restrain Naam Tamilar Katchi (NTK) chief coordinator S. Seeman and his followers from interfering with the screening of the movie in cinema halls on the alleged ground that it portrays the Tamil Eelam issue in a derogatory manner. The writ petitioner SSI Production also sought a direction to the Director General of Police, Greater Chennai Commissioner of Police and Coimbatore Commissioner of Police to provide adequate police protection to the cinema theatres screening the movie. The petition has been listed for hearing before Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy on Wednesday (August 6, 2025). Filing an affidavit in support of the writ petition, K. Abhilash of SSI Production stated that the Telugu movie 'Kingdom' had been produced with a huge budget of ₹130 crore. It had been produced by Sithara Entertainments and directed by Gowtam Tinnanuri, who had received the national award for his previous film Jersey under the best Telugu film category. Further stating that famous music composer Anirudh Ravichander from Tamil Nadu had scored the music for 'Kingdom', the deponent said the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) too had issued a certificate on July 30, 2025 for its theatrical release. However, on August 4, 2025, Mr. Seeman had raised a complaint about the movie by tweeting on his X handle. This had led to his followers issuing threats to some of the cinema theatre owners in Chennai and Coimbatore against the screening of the movie. 'Some cinema hall owners have already expressed apprehension and reluctance to continue screening the film due to the fear of law and order disturbances... It has also created fear among the general Public and theatre staff,' the deponent said. Pointing out the CBFC was the statutory authority to certify whether a film was fit for public exhibition or not, the petitioner said the political parties could not take law into their hands and prevent the exhibition of movies. It would amount to curtailing the fundamental right to speech and expression and the police were duty bound to interfere when such a right gets threatened, it added. The petitioner also relied upon the Supreme Court verdicts in S. Rangarajan versus P. Jagjivan Ram (1989) and Nachiketa Walhekar versus CBFC (2018) wherein it had been held that once a film had been cleared for public screening by the CBFC, it could not be subjected to extrajudicial censorship or prevented from public screening by private individuals or organisations.
The Hindu
22-07-2025
- Politics
- The Hindu
Madras High Court orders reissue of NTK leader Seeman's lost passport
Observing that politicians would naturally have criminal cases pending against them and that, by itself, cannot be a ground to deny passport, the Madras High Court on Monday (July 21, 2025) directed the Regional Passport Officer in Chennai to reissue the lost passport of Naam Tamilar Katchi (NTK) leader S. Seeman within four weeks. Justice N. Anand Venkatesh allowed a writ petition filed by the party leader and quashed an order passed by the RPO refusing to reissue the passport. He pointed out that a Division Bench of the High Court had already held that the permission of criminal courts is not required to seek the renewal/reissuance of passports. Individuals facing criminal cases would have to obtain the permission of the criminal court concerned only when they intend to travel abroad, the judge said and directed the RPO to process the petitioner's application and reissue the passport within a month if the application was in order otherwise. In his affidavit, Mr. Seeman stated he had been facing motivated criminal cases since 2008 and yet, he had been visiting many foreign countries to meet the Tamil diaspora. When the RPO refused to reissue his passport with additional pages in 2013, he had approached the High Court and obtained a favourable order. However, when he planned to visit some neighbouring countries in September 2024, he found that he had lost his passport. Immediately, a police complaint was lodged and a Lost Document Report (LDR) was obtained on October 10, 2024. Thereafter, he applied for the reissuance of the passport in November 2024. The RPO on January 31, 2025, refused to reissue the passport, the petitioner complained and contended he was not facing any serious charges and there was no likelihood of him absconding or evading the course of justice. Mere pendency of a few 'motivated criminal cases' could not be a reason to deny passport, he argued.
The Hindu
15-07-2025
- Politics
- The Hindu
Seeman moves Madras High Court for re-issue of lost passport
Naam Tamilar Katchi (NTK) leader S. Seeman (60) has approached the Madras High Court against the refusal of the Regional Passport Office (RPO) in Chennai to reissue his lost passport citing a number of criminal cases pending against him as per local police report. Justice N. Anand Venkatesh, on Tuesday (July 15, 2025), directed a central government counsel to take notice on behalf of the RPO and accepted a request made by a Tamil Nadu government advocate to grant time till July 22 for filing a status report on behalf of the Inspector of Neelankarai police station in Chennai. In his affidavit, the petitioner stated that he had been facing motivated criminal cases since 2008 and yet he had been visiting many foreign countries to meet the Tamil diaspora. When the RPO refused to reissue Seeman passport with additional pages in 2013, he had approached the High Court and obtained a favourable order. However, when he planned to visit some neighbouring countries in September 2024, he learnt to have lost his passport somewhere. Immediately, a police complaint was lodged and a Lost Document Report (LDR) was obtained on October 10, 2024. Thereafter, he applied for reissuance of the passport in November 2024. The RPO on January 31, 2025 refused to reissue the passport, the petitioner complained and contended he was not facing any serious charges and there was no likelihood of him absconding or evading the course of justice. Mere pendency of a few 'motivated criminal cases' could not be a reason to deny passport, he said.
