<h3>Overview</h3>
<p>The <span class="key-term" data-definition="Madras High Court — the highest judicial authority in the state of Tamil Nadu, exercising appellate jurisdiction and constitutional powers (GS2: Polity)">Madras High Court</span> on 10 April 2026 dismissed two writ petitions that sought to prohibit the screening of the film “Dhurandhar 2: The Revenge” in Tamil Nadu until the conclusion of the state assembly elections. The petitioners argued that the movie violated the <span class="key-term" data-definition="Model Code of Conduct (MCC) — a set of guidelines issued by the Election Commission of India to ensure a level playing field during elections; it restricts the use of official resources for partisan purposes (GS2: Polity)">Model Code of Conduct</span> and that it amounted to electioneering by the ruling party.</p>
<h3>Key Developments</h3>
<ul>
<li>The bench comprising <strong>Chief Justice S.A. Dharmadhikari</strong> and <strong>Justice G. Arul Murugan</strong> held that no law bars a film’s exhibition while the MCC is in force.</li>
<li>The court observed that the petitioners had not challenged the certificate granted by the <span class="key-term" data-definition="Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) — the statutory body that certifies films for public exhibition in India; its certification is a prerequisite for legal screening (GS2: Polity)">CBFC</span>, and therefore it could not issue any restraining order.</li>
<li>The petitioners cited Clause 4 of Chapter VII of the MCC, which prohibits the use of public funds and official mass media for partisan promotion, alleging that the film glorified the achievements of the <span class="key-term" data-definition="Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) — the ruling national party of India, whose policies and performance often become election issues (GS2: Polity)">BJP</span> in areas such as counter‑terrorism and anti‑money‑laundering.</li>
<li>A separate counsel claimed the movie incited communal tension and war‑like sentiment, but the court found no legal basis to act without a CBFC challenge.</li>
<li>The court dismissed the petitions and ordered a detailed judgment to be delivered later.</li>
</ul>
<h3>Important Facts</h3>
<p>• Case title: <strong>D Rakesh v. Chief Election Commissioner & Others</strong>.<br>
• Citation: <strong>2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 156</strong>.<br>
• Writ Petition No.: <strong>WP 14335 of 2026</strong>.<br>
• Petitioners: unnamed individuals and counsel representing concerns over election fairness.<br>
• Respondents: film’s producers <strong>Adithya Dhar, Lokesh Dhar</strong> and producer <strong>Jyoti Deshpande</strong>.</p>
<h3>UPSC Relevance</h3>
<p>The judgment underscores the constitutional balance between freedom of expression and electoral integrity, a frequent topic in <span class="key-term" data-definition="GS2: Polity — the paper covering Indian polity, governance, and constitutional law (relevant for questions on courts, election law, and fundamental rights)">GS2: Polity</span>. It illustrates how the <span class="key-term" data-definition="Election Commission of India (ECI) — the autonomous constitutional authority that administers elections and enforces the Model Code of Conduct (GS2: Polity)">Model Code of Conduct</span> operates in practice, and why challenges must be directed at the statutory certifying body (CBFC) rather than the content itself. Aspirants should note the procedural requirement of challenging a CBFC certificate to invoke judicial intervention, reflecting the doctrine of separation of powers.</p>
<h3>Way Forward</h3>
<p>Future litigants seeking to curb media content during elections should first approach the <span class="key-term" data-definition="CBFC — as defined above, the body whose certification determines a film’s legality (GS2: Polity)">CBFC</span> for revocation or modification of the certificate. Additionally, the Election Commission may consider issuing specific guidelines on political messaging in entertainment media to pre‑empt similar disputes. Monitoring of election‑related content will likely intensify, making it essential for policymakers and legal practitioners to balance artistic freedom with the sanctity of the electoral process.</p>