Madras High Court Reserves Verdict On Plea Challenging 'A' Certificate For Rajnikanth Starrer 'Coolie' Movie

Justice TV Thamilselvi reserved the orders after hearing the arguments of Senior Advocate J Ravindran, appearing for Sun TV, and Additional Solicitor General ARL Sundaresan, representing the board.

Sun Pictures, the production company of Sun TV and producers of the movie, had applied for certification as per Rule 22 of the Cinematography (Certification) Rules 1983. After evaluation of the movie, the Examining Committee sent an email stating that the movie would be given an “A” certificate, provided certain cuts are made. The Revising Committee also granted an “A” certificate, stating that the movie portrayed extensive violence.

Sun TV had argued that when compared to movies like KGF, Beast, and others, Coolie movie depicted less violence and was still given an 'A' certificate.

Ravindran stressed the freedom of speech and expression and argued that the movie only portrayed violence, which was not per se prohibited under the Act. It was also argued that the movie showed incidents happening in the life of a coolie and if there were any violence, it was just part of the movie and not glorification. It was also argued that while certifying the movie, it had to be viewed from the point of an ordinary person and not as experts.

Appearing for the Board, ASG ARL Sundaresan, argued that the makers of the movie had already accepted the “A” certificate, and the present plea was only an afterthought. Sundaresan pointed out that the decision to give an 'A' certificate was a unanimous decision taken by both the original committee and the revising committee. He added that while certifying the movie, the committee members had noted that the movie portrayed frequent and extensive violence, strong threatening moments, gruesome killing, smoking, drinking, and characters using bad language occasionally.

Sundaresan also argued that though the movie makers had the freedom of expression, the question was whether children should be allowed to see the movie. He pointed out that the committee consisted of members coming from various sections of society, who had unanimously opined that the movie should be viewed only by adults. He added that the movie makers were informed that if they wanted children to view the movie, some excisions had to be made, which they were not ready for.

He further argued that when the decision was taken by 13 individuals across two boards, it had to be seen from the viewpoint of the public. He added that the moviemakers could portray a coolie in his own mannerisms, but if that portrayal involved violence, it could not be viewed to children.

Case Title: Sun TV Network Ltd v. Central Board of Film Certification

Case No: CMA 2441 of 2025