[Cites 9, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
D.Rakesh, vs The Chief Election Commissioner, on 10 April, 2026
2026:MHC:1436
W.P.No.14335 of 2026.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 10.04.2026
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI,
CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN
WP No.14335 of 2026
and WMP No.15555 of 2026
D.Rakesh,
S/o.K.Damodaran,
No.23, 3rd Cross Street,
Duraisamy Nagar, Madurai,
PO. Arasaradi, Madurai-625016.
Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The Chief Election Commissioner,
Election Commission of India,
Nirvachan Sadan, Ashoka Road,
New Delhi-110 001
2. The Chief Electoral Officer, Tamil Nadu,
Tamil Nadu State Election Commission,
208/2, Jawaharlal Nehru Road,
Chennai – 600106.
3. The Secretary (I and B),
Government of India,
Ministry of Information and Broadcasting,
Shastri Bhavan, New Delhi - 110 001.
______________
Page 1 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.14335 of 2026.
4. The Chief Executive Officer,
Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC),
Films Division Complex,Phase-I Building,
Dr.G.Deshmukh Marg, Mumbai-400 026.
5. Aditya Dhar and Lokesh Dhar,
Filmmakers-Durandhar:The Revenge,
B62, Studios, Mumbai, Maharashtra.
6. Jyoti Deshpande,
Jio Studios (Presenter and Producer),
9th Floor, Maker Chambers IV,
222, Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400 021.
Respondent(s)
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus forbearing respondent Nos.5
and 6, their men agents, servants from exhibiting of the Film
Durandhar. The Revenge in the State of Tamil Nadu in all modes
whether theatrical, OTT, and otherwise until the declaration of results
of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly Elections 2026, on the ground
that its continued screening during the MCC period constitutes a
violation of the level playing field mandate.
For Petitioner(s): Mr.Pranjal
for Mr.R.Rajakumaran
For Respondent(s):Mr.Niranjan Rajagopalan
Standing Counsel
for R1 and R2
______________
Page 2 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.14335 of 2026.
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)
The petitioner has filed this writ petition, styled as public
interest litigation, seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus to
forbear respondent Nos.5 and 6 from exhibiting of the Film
Durandhar - The Revenge in the State of Tamil Nadu in all modes
whether theatrical, OTT, and otherwise until the declaration of
results of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly Elections 2026, on
the ground that its continued screening during the Model Code of
Conduct (MCC) period constitutes a violation of the level playing
field mandate.
2.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the MCC
expressly prohibits publicity regarding governmental achievements
aimed at furthering the prospects of the party in power, and the
film, in substance and effect, constitutes exactly such publicity
delivered through the powerful medium of popular cinema and,
therefore, it should not be exhibited in Tamil Nadu through any
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.14335 of 2026.
mode till the declaration of the results of the Assembly Elections,
2026.
2.2. It is further submitted that the Election Commission of
India has a constitutional duty under Article 324 of the Constitution
of India to take all steps necessary to maintain a level playing field
among all contesting parties and candidates. He hastened to add
that the CBFC and the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting
have an independent statutory obligation under the Cinematograph
Act, 1952 to examine whether the Film’s continued exhibition during
the election period is consistent with certification guidelines.
2.3. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the
petitioner referring to Clause VII of the Compendium of Instructions
on Model Code of Conduct, 2024.
“VII. Party in Power. - The party in power whether
at the Centre or in the State or States concerned,
shall ensure that no cause is given for any complaint
that it has used its official position for the purposes
of its election campaign and in particular-
(i) to (iii) ....
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.14335 of 2026.
(iv) Issue of advertisement at the cost of public
exchequer in the newspapers and other media and
the misuse of official mass media during the election
period for partisan coverage of political news and
publicity regarding achievements with a view to
furthering the prospects of the party in power shall
be scrupulously avoided.”
[emphasis supplied]
3. Even according to the averments contained in the writ
petition, the film was released in Tamil dubbing on 21 st March, 2026
and has been widely screened across the State of Tamil Nadu.
However, till date, the petitioner has not chosen to challenge the
CBFC certification issued to the film. Once the certificate has been
issued, there is prima facie a presumption that the authority
concerned has taken into account all the Guidelines, including public
order.
4. In this regard, it is apposite to refer to the observations of
the Supreme Court in Viacom 18 Media (P) Ltd. v. Union of India 1,
which are as under:
1 (2018) 1 SCC 761
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.14335 of 2026.
“15. ... The creative content is an insegregable
aspect of Article 19(1) of the Constitution. Needless
to emphasise, this right is not absolute. There can be
regulatory measures. Regulatory measures are
reflectible from the language employed under
Section 5-B of the Act and the Guidelines issued by
the Central Government. Once the parliamentary
legislation confers the responsibility and the
power on a statutory Board and the Board
grants certification, non-exhibition of the film
by the States would be contrary to the
statutory provisions and infringe the
fundamental right of the petitioners. That
apart, as we understand at present from para
27 of the judgment in Prakash Jha
Productions v. Union of India, (2011) 8 SCC
372, it is the duty and obligation of the State to
maintain law and order in the State.
16. It has to be borne in mind, expression of an idea
by any one through the medium of cinema which is a
public medium has its own status under the
Constitution and the statute. There is a Censor Board
under the Act which allows grant of certificate for
screening of the movies. As we scan the language of
the Act and the Guidelines framed thereunder, it
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.14335 of 2026.
prohibits use and presentation of visuals or words
contemptuous of racial, religious or other groups. Be
that as it may. As advised at present, once the
certificate has been issued, there is prima facie
a presumption that the authority concerned has
taken into account all the Guidelines including
public order.”
[emphasis supplied]
5. The aforesaid view was reiterated by the Supreme Court in
Atul Mishra v. Union of India2, and it was held as under:
“32.1. Thus, this Court was clear in enunciating the
principle that once the film is granted certificate
by the competent statutory Board, unless the
said certificate is nullified or modified by any
superior authority, the producer or distributor
of the film has every right to get it exhibited in
a movie hall. Deprecating the activities of any
body, group, association or individual seeking
to prevent exhibition of a film, this Court was of
the opinion that if such activities are
encouraged, it would bring in anarchy and
2 2026 SCC OnLine SC 321
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.14335 of 2026.
cripple the right to freedom of speech and
expression.”
[emphasis supplied]
6. The Supreme Court in Union of India v. K.M. Shankarappa 3,
has held as under:
“8. We fail to understand the apprehension
expressed by the learned counsel that there may be
a law and order situation. Once an expert body
has considered the impact of the film on the
public and has cleared the film, it is no excuse
to say that there may be a law and order
situation. It is for the State Government
concerned to see that law and order is
maintained. In any democratic society there are
bound to be divergent views. Merely because a
small section of the society has a different
view, from that as taken by the Tribunal, and
choose to express their views by unlawful
means would be no ground for the executive to
review or revise a decision of the Tribunal. In
such a case, the clear duty of the Government
is to ensure that law and order is maintained by
3 (2001) 1 SCC 582
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.14335 of 2026.
taking appropriate actions against persons who
choose to breach the law.”
[emphasis supplied]
7. As held by the Apex Court in the aforesaid decisions, once
the expert body has considered the impact on the public and has
cleared the film, merely because a small section of the society has a
different view, the exhibition of the film cannot be stalled.
For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is dismissed.
There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, interim
application stands closed.
(SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI,CJ) (G.ARUL MURUGAN,J)
10.04.2026
Index : Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
sasi
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.14335 of 2026.
To:
1. The Chief Election Commissioner,
Election Commission of India,
Nirvachan Sadan, Ashoka Road,
New Delhi-110 001
2. The Chief Electoral Officer, Tamil Nadu,
Tamil Nadu State Election Commission,
208/2, Jawaharlal Nehru Road,
Chennai – 600106.
3. The Secretary (I and B),
Government of India,
Ministry of Information and Broadcasting,
Shastri Bhavan, New Delhi - 110 001.
4. The Chief Executive Officer,
Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC),
Films Division Complex,Phase-I Building,
Dr.G.Deshmukh Marg, Mumbai-400 026.
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.14335 of 2026.
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
G.ARUL MURUGAN,J.
(sasi)
10.04.2026
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
