Why plea seeking ban on Suriya-Trisha's Karuppu was dismissed by Madras HC: ‘Judges not holy cows’ | Explainer

REcently, a Public stake judicial proceeding (PIL) was filed against RJ Balaji’s Suriya and Trisha Krishnan-starrer Karuppu at the Madras heights margaret court seeking a censor on the film. Even as the film grossed ₹250 crore worldwide, the PIL sought a ban on it, citing its portrayal of a corrupt judiciary. However, a vacation bench comprising two judges, one of whom had watched the film, refused to entertain the plea.How does Karuppu depict the judiciary system?Karuppu shows a guardian deity placed outside a fictional Seven Wells court, taking a human form as advocate Saravanan (Suriya) to prove that justice can also be delivered through fair means. Advocate Baby Kannan (Balaji) is the one who challenges him to do so, while advocate Preethi (Trisha) helps Karuppu Swamy prove his point. The film shows how even a guardian deity like him can’t do much when judges or lawyers insist on swindling those in desperate need. The lawyers in the film are shown to be openly corrupt, as the judge is willing to look the other way for bribes. Baby is shown not just influencing the lawyers around him and the judge, but also the system.(Also Read: Karuppu: Flawed yet beautiful humans are the soul of Suriya-Trisha Krishnan's film, not guardian deities)What is the PIL filed against Karuppu?Chennai-based advocate RS Tamilvendan filed a PIL against Karuppu seeking a ban on screening the film in theatres and on OTT platforms. The petitioner claimed that the movie damaged the dignity and majesty of courts by its portrayal of a corrupt judicial officer and an unethical advocate who exercises influence over the judicial system. It was also argued that Karuppu scandalised the judiciary and hence was under criminal contempt of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. According to Lawbeat, the bench referred to Section 5B of the Cinematograph Act, 1952, which allows the refusal of certification if a movie affects public order, morality, or decency, or amounts to contempt of court. Why did the Madras HC refuse to entertain the PIL?The Madras HC bench observed that no one can deny the existence of corruption in the judiciary and that there were corrupt judges. It was also pointed out that the HC ‘regularly shows exit door’ to such ‘black sheep’. One of the judges admitted to seeing the movie in a theatre and that the producer was not called upon to arrange a special screening. Calling the portrayal of the judiciary in the film ‘grossly exaggerated,’ the judges also pointed out how heroes vanquish a dozen villains single-handedly in ‘melodramatic’ Tamil films. The HC mentioned that the CBFC would not grant the film certification if it was in contempt of court.According to PTI, the bench said that ‘judges need not be treated as holy cows’ and that in a previous case, it was observed that criticism of judicial functioning was ‘healthy’ for introspection and improvement. “We would add by including courts and judges also. Judges were not above criticism,” said the bench, adding that the filmmaker was entitled to take artistic license and present things in his own way. Karuppu was released on May 15 to mixed reviews but has become the highest–grossing Tamil film of 2026. The film’s release was delayed by a day due to the production house, Dream Warrior Pictures’ financial troubles.