‘Corruption in judiciary’: Why Madras High Court refused to ban Tamil movie ‘Karuppu’

Justices G R Swaminathan and V Lakshminarayanan

‘Artistic licence’

• The court noted that the movie depicts a corrupt presiding officer and an unethical advocate wielding influence over court functioning.
• The court observed that, though the portrayal of the system in the movie was grossly exaggerated, it noted that the artist is entitled to present it in his own way.
• The court recorded that one of the judges of the bench had watched the movie.
• “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 is one of a piece. In any event, the artist is entitled to present in his own way. This is what is called as artistic licence,” the court observed.
• It noted that what passes off as a factual essay or presentation or documentary may be tested on a stricter standard however an artistic production will be weighed on a different scale altogether. ‘An artist has a greater leverage and freedom,’ the court held.
• The bench stressed that an artist has his own freedom to express himself in a manner which is not prohibited in law and such prohibitions are not read by implication to crucify the rights of an expressive mind.
• The court emphasised that the manner of presentation of a movie and the content of the presentation must be left to the creator. It added that as long as the author does not venture into forbidden territories, the creative spirit must be respected.
• The court noted that films are artistic creations entitled to constitutional protection under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. Article 19(1)(a) states that all citizens shall have the right to freedom of speech and expression.

‘Justice not a cloistered virtue’

The court further observed that once the Central Board of Film Certification had granted certification to the film, the writ court could not substitute its own opinion and direct a ban.

“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 (Lord Atkin),” the court remarked.

It remarked that the question whether the movie involves contempt of court should be viewed from the perspective of a calm judge with broad shoulders and not that of a touchy character.

“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,” the court noted.

Rejecting the contempt argument, the court held that the movie portrayed a fictional “Seven Wells Court” and not any actual court institution. It added that 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, 1971. We may finally note that the director has not portrayed the entire judicial system as corrupt,” the court said.

Holding that no case for interference was made out, the court dismissed the plea.

About Karuppu

Karuppu is directed by RJ Balaji, who co-wrote the screenplay with Rathna Kumar, Ashwin Ravichandran, Rahul Raj, TS Gopi Krishnan and Karan Aravind Kumar. Suriya leads the cast as Saravanan, a rural lawyer who is also the human avatar of the deity Karuppusamy, with Trisha Krishnan playing opposite him as Preethi, their fourth pairing after Mounam Pesiyadhe (2002), Aayutha Ezhuthu (2004) and Aaru (2005).

Balaji also appears in the film as Baby Kannan, one of the supporting roles. The film is produced by SR Prabhu and SR Prakash Babu under the Dream Warrior Pictures banner.