Madras High Court Orders Police Protection For Theatres Screening Vijay Deverakonda's 'Kingdom' Movie

Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy observed that in a democracy, the movie-makers have a right to express their views and a third party cannot threaten the theatre owners or prevent the screening of the movie if they disagree with the views expressed in the movie.

The court reiterated that screening of a movie, which had been duly certified by the censor board, could not be halted merely because there was difference of opinion.

“In a democracy, the creators of a movie has got every right to express their views and in this case, it is a fiction, therefore, anything expressed in any movie may be abhorrent and unpalatable to a particular section of the society. Even then, when the censor board cleared the movie for being exhibited in theatre, no third party can prevent its exhibition or threaten the theatre owners,” the judge orally remarked.

At the same time, the court also added that the political party had a right to protest against the views expressed in the movie, in a peaceful manner, after obtaining necessary permission from the authorities.

The court was hearing a petition filed by SSI Production, which had bagged the Tamil Nadu theatrical rights for the movie. The production house had approached the court seeking police protection to enable peaceful and uninterrupted screening of the movie after NTK Chief Seeman alleged that the movie portrayed the Tamil Eelam issue in a derogatory manner and allegedly threatened to forcefully stop the screening.

The petitioner argued that the movie was a work of fiction and did not hurt the sentiments relating to Tamil Eelam issue. The production apprehended that Seeman had caused fear among the theatre owners and staff. It was further submitted that some theatre owners had already expressed apprehension and reluctance to continue screening the movie due to fear of law and order disturbance.

When the matter was taken up earlier, the court had remarked that the right to express dissent did not include the right to prevent screening of the movie. The court added that if aggrieved, the party could even take steps to cancel the certification of the movie. However, the court added, the party and its men could not go and prevent the movie screening. The court had also issued notice to the respondent authorities and Seeman.

On Thursday, counsel appearing for Seeman informed the court that he had only opposed the content of the movie and had not prevented the screening. It was also submitted that only a peaceful protest had been carried out against the movie.

The judge reiterated that even though the party did not agree with the content of the movie, it could not prevent the screening. The court thus directed the respondent police authorities to provide protection to theatres wherever such incidents had been reported and disposed of the plea.

Case Title: SSI Production v. The Director General of Police and Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 268

Case No: WP Crl 519 of 2025