Banning online film reviews equivalent to curtailing freedom of speech and expression: Madras High Court

Holding that banning on-line overview of films for first three days of their theatrical launch would tantamount to interfering with the basic proper to freedom of speech and expression, the Madras Excessive Court docket, on Thursday (June 26, 2025) dismissed a writ petition in search of such restriction filed by Tamil Movie Energetic Producers Affiliation (TFAPA).

Justice N. Anand Venkatesh stated, reviewing the standard of newly-released motion pictures on mainstream media in addition to social media platforms equivalent to YouTube, Fb, Instagram and X was additionally part of the basic proper to freedom of speech and expression and subsequently, producers couldn’t anticipate solely constructive critiques.

The decide stated, the members of the producers affiliation ought to settle for the fact and never try to foreclose critiques. “The aid searched for by them within the current writ petition is unsustainable and can’t be granted by this courtroom,” he noticed dictating orders.

‘Adverse critiques about judges too’

He added the producers appeared to have conveniently forgotten concerning the new problem posed to the existence of cinema theatres by the OTT (Over the Prime) platform which was slowly turning out to be the popular alternative for a lot of to observe newly-released motion pictures on the consolation of their properties.

Through the course of listening to, the decide instructed the petitioner’s counsel “we live in an period when individuals give detrimental critiques even about judges. Simply go and see how they’ve criticised me on the social media. We can’t cease all these issues. In the present day something and anyone will be reviewed. It’s all past management.”

What if overview comes from Azerbaijan?

He added: “I comply with a special follow. Each time there’s a detrimental overview a couple of film, I watch that specific film as a result of I do know that it’s accomplished by some pressure. With social media, you’ll be able to cease no person. In case you cease somebody right here, one other particular person will do it from Azerbaijan. What is going to you do then?”

The decide additionally requested, “even when I move an order as sought by you, how can that order be applied? I don’t imagine in passing orders which can’t be applied. You might be in search of an impossibility earlier than this courtroom. In the present day, your complete world is within the grip of social media. There’s not a single particular person/organisation/nation which escapes the overview or feedback made in social media.”

‘Subsequent to unattainable to cease’

Stating it was subsequent to unattainable to cease such feedback, he stated: “Within the social media period, consciousness is the one answer by which the society can tread a balanced path. Folks should gauge motion pictures after watching them and shouldn’t be swayed by what others say about these motion pictures.”

Additionally observing that the opinion concerning a film would differ from individual to individual, Justice Venkatesh stated, simply because some individuals give a detrimental overview a couple of film, that by itself, wouldn’t cease others from watching the film and coming to their very own conclusion.

“That’s the reason why this courtroom has stated that consciousness alone might be the panacea for the social media evil. Historical past tells us that motion pictures which confronted such detrimental critiques at first, truly revived themselves and proved to achieve success. Due to this fact, individuals should not be undermined,” he added.