Why Did the Madras HC Order Police Protection for Theatres Showing 'Kingdom' Amid NTK Protests?
Click to start listening
Synopsis
The Madras High Court has mandated police protection for theatres screening the film 'Kingdom' due to escalating protests from NTK. This ruling underscores the delicate balance between artistic freedom and political dissent, igniting discussions on censorship and the rights of political expression.
Key Takeaways
- Madras HC orders police protection for theatres showing 'Kingdom.'
- NTK protests erupt over the film's content.
- Artistic freedom must be safeguarded in a democracy.
- Protests should remain peaceful and lawful.
- No group has the right to threaten theatre owners.
Chennai, Aug 7 (NationPress) The Madras High Court has instructed the Tamil Nadu police to provide sufficient security for cinemas showcasing the film Kingdom, starring Vijay Deverakonda, following threats and disturbances reportedly initiated by members of Naam Tamilar Katchi (NTK).
Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy issued this order while concluding a writ petition lodged by SSI Production, the entity responsible for the theatrical distribution of the film in Tamil Nadu.
The petitioners claimed that NTK activists had threatened cinema owners and caused disruptions statewide after a social media post by NTK’s leader Seeman, which criticized the film for allegedly misrepresenting the Tamil Eelam narrative.
The legal representative for SSI Production submitted video evidence of damaged posters and promotional materials for the film across various sites. Additionally, it was claimed that protesters had entered certain cinemas, interrupting screenings and trying to deter viewers from watching the film.
Letters allegedly authored by NTK members, warning theatre owners against presenting Kingdom, were also submitted to the court. The government’s attorney informed the court of the arrest of 16 NTK members in relation to these incidents, coupled with multiple protests organized by the party. Nonetheless, Seeman’s legal counsel contended that the protests were conducted peacefully and in a democratic manner.
He asserted that Seeman simply expressed his dissent regarding the film's portrayal and did not incite violence or unrest. He further condemned the filmmakers for supposedly depicting Sri Lankan Tamils as “illegal immigrants” engaged in smuggling.
In response to these arguments, Justice Chakravarthy highlighted the significance of artistic expression within a democratic framework.
“We may not agree with the film's content if it is as objectionable as you claim… But in a democracy, the freedom of artistic expression must always be safeguarded,” he remarked.
While recognizing the right of political parties to protest, he clarified that such demonstrations must remain peaceful, take place with police consent, and occur in designated areas.
Reinforcing that Kingdom is a fictional work approved by the Censor Board, the judge ruled that no individual or group possesses the authority to obstruct its screening or intimidate cinema owners, regardless of their objections to its content.
Point of View
It is essential to uphold the principles of artistic freedom while ensuring that protests remain peaceful and lawful. The ruling by the Madras High Court not only protects the rights of filmmakers but also reinforces the importance of dialogue in democratic societies. NationPress believes in the necessity of understanding diverse viewpoints while promoting a culture of respect and tolerance.
NationPress
20/08/2025
Frequently Asked Questions
What prompted the Madras High Court's ruling?
The ruling was prompted by threats and disruptions from members of Naam Tamilar Katchi against theatres screening the film 'Kingdom.'
Who is Seeman, and why is he involved?
Seeman is the chief coordinator of NTK, who criticized 'Kingdom' for allegedly misrepresenting the Tamil Eelam issue, leading to protests.
What is the significance of the court's ruling?
The ruling emphasizes the protection of artistic expression in a democracy while affirming the need for protests to be conducted peacefully.
How did the court address the concerns over protests?
The court acknowledged the right to protest but mandated that such protests must be peaceful, permitted by police, and held in designated areas.
