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

Suriya in ‘Karuppu’. Photo: Special arrangement

The Madras High Court has ruled that actor Suriya Karuppu’s latest film portrays the chief justice of an imaginary court as corrupt and therefore would not attract the provisions of the Contempt of Court Act 1971, which warranted a ban on the film.

A division bench of GR Swaminathan and V Lakshminarayanan dismissed the suit filed by RS Tamilvendan of Chennai after observing that the case was a textbook example of a kind of feigned outrage and pretense of insult in innocuous matters.

The judges pointed out that the Metropolitan Magistrate Courts in Chennai were called George Town Courts, Egmore Courts and Saidapet Courts. However, the film only depicts the chairman of a non-existent institution called the Seven Wells Court.

“There is no court called Seven Wells court. It is imaginary, just as Malgudi is a fictional village in the works of RK Narayan. When the person presiding over an imaginary court is shown to be corrupt, it does not attract the penal provisions contained in the Contempt of Courts Act,” the Bench wrote.

The Division Bench further emphasized that the film’s director RJ Balaji did not portray the entire judicial system as corrupt, saying that even otherwise, the court could not have banned the film after the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) found nothing contemptible in it.

The judges pointed out that Section 5B of the Cinematography Act, 1952 empowered the CBFC to refuse certification for public screening of a film if the board was of the opinion that either the whole of the film or any part of it involved defamation or contempt of court.

“Thus, the Censor Board can refuse to sanction the public release of a film on the ground that it involves contempt of court. But when the Censor Board itself was not of the opinion that the film involves contempt of court and issued a certificate, the Court will not supersede its opinion,” the Bench said.

Justice Swaminathan, who wrote the verdict, also wrote, “Judges need not be treated as holy cows. Justice is not a closed virtue; it must be allowed to undergo scrutiny. Lack of respect in the dialogues of the film (Karuppu) would make no difference to us.”

He noted that the question of whether the film contains contempt of court should be examined from the perspective of a calm, broad-shouldered judge, and not from a callous character, even though Karuppu exaggerated the unholy nexus between an unethical lawyer and a corrupt judge.

“It is true that the film’s depiction of the system is grossly exaggerated. But that is the way films are made in Tamil. The hero single-handedly defeats a dozen villains who surround him. Everything is melodramatic in Tamil cinema. Therefore, Karuppu should also be taken as one of the parts,” he wrote.

The judge went on to say, “We are now in the age of social media. Anyone can say anything and get away with it. Therefore, the norms developed in earlier centuries may no longer apply. Even if an appalling statement is made, it would be better to ignore it. The judicial caravan must move on.”

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

“People come to court to protect their freedom and liberty from invasion by state agencies. It is a court that stands as a qui vive watchman and should not issue any directives to curtail the freedom of citizens. We protect not only the words we like but also the words we hate,” the judge concluded.

Published – 27 May 2026 19:50 IST