How Tamil actor MR Radha escaped the staging of a ‘banned’ play in 1959

MR Radha | Photo Credit: The Hindu Archives

On 25 April 1959, the Madras government issued an order banning the Tamil play Thooku Medai by the popular actor MR Radha. It was banned on the ground that it deliberately intended to outrage the religious sentiments of a class of citizens of India and also on the ground that it was indecent, ridiculous and obscene.

Subsequently, Radha submitted the script of another drama, Kathal Bali, to the Madras Commissioner of Police and obtained a license to perform the play. He then staged the play at Theagaraja College Open Air Theater in Washermenpet on 19 July 1959.

When the police found that the game was similar to the banned Thook Medai, they registered a case against Radha. Second Presidency Magistrate, George Town, convicted Radha under Section 7(1) of the Madras Dramatic Performance Act, 1954 and sentenced him to pay a fine of ₹200 and in default to simple imprisonment for three weeks.

Radha challenged the Madras High Court challenging his conviction.

While hearing the case, the court said that the essential question to be determined under the Madras Dramatic Performances Act is whether the drama actually staged by Radha is substantially the same as the drama banned by the Government and not whether the script of the drama submitted to the Commissioner of Police is substantially the same as the banned drama Thook Medai.

Justice Sadasivam observed that there can be no doubt that the plot of the play Kathal Bali is the same as that of the drama Thooku Medai, which was not disputed by the Radha counsel.

“The characters in both the dramas are the same and even the names of several characters are identical. Theagaraja Mudaliar, Paramarthika Iyengar, Munjan, Velalagan, Kanakam and Ardhanari are the same characters in both the dramas. The characters of Pandiyan, Veni and Vanitha in Thooku Medai appear as Maran Mala and Balsecu who have learned a long list of the Public in The Public. problematic passages which are common in both the dramas It is true as pointed out by learned counsel the petitioner that some of the offending passages in Thooku Medai do not find place in Kathal Bali, so the first scene of Thooku Medai, in which the poojari of the Kali temple rapes a virgin, was also omitted. If the first scene of Thooku Medai was incorporated in Kathal Bali and the missing passages were also found in Kathal Bali, the two dramas would be identical in all respects,” the judge pointed out.

“The proper test is whether one who is familiar with the forbidden drama Thooku Medai visits the drama Kathal Bali without being informed of the name of the play, has the impression that he is witnessing a forbidden drama. Judged by this standard, there can be no doubt that the play Kathal Bali, which contains most of the objectionable passages found in the Thooku Medai, in terms of story, in terms of story and dialogues, is substantially the same as Thooku, but not only in characters Medai, but also dialogues.” objectionable passages,” the judge said.

However, Radha’s counsel argued that the fact that the Commissioner of Police had granted a license to perform the drama Kathal Bali would hinder the prosecution of the actor and in any case would adversely affect the necessary criminal activity required for the offense charged against him.

However, Justice Sadasivam pointed out that in this case the petitioner Radha who staged the drama Kathal Bali is the same person who staged the government banned drama Thooku Medai under Section 3 of the Act. “From this it could easily be inferred that he knew that the Kathal Bali drama he acted was substantially the same as the banned drama Thook Medai. The Commissioner of Police cannot grant a license to act a drama which has been banned by the State Government under Section 3 of the Madras Dramatic Performances Act or a drama which is substantially the same as the banned drama granted by its creator. The judge said.

The judge passed the order on 11 July 1962 and held that Radha’s conviction under Section 7(1) of the Madras Dramatic Performances Act was correct.

However, in an interesting twist, the judge then said, “But since the Commissioner of Police mistakenly granted permission to the petitioner to enact the drama, the prosecution of the petitioner by the same Commissioner appears anomalous and justice would therefore be served by discharging him after due reprimand under Section 3 of the Madraender and Penalty Act I. Section 3 of the Madras Probation of Offenders Act orders the refund of the amount fines to the petitioner.

Published – 21 October 2026 06:00 IST