The Madras High Court observed that corruption exists within the judiciary while hearing a plea seeking a ban on the Tamil film ‘Karuppu’. The court said judges are not above criticism and emphasised that judicial institutions must remain open to public scrutiny and introspection
Published Date – 28 May 2026, 08:59 PM
Chennai: Observing that none can deny there is corruption in the judiciary, the Madras High Court has said that there were and are corrupt judges. A vacation bench comprising Justices G R Swaminathan and V Lakshminarayan observed while dismissing a Public Interest Litigation plea on May 21 from an advocate R S Tamilvendan, which sought a direction to the authorities to ban the continued screening of the Tamil film “Karuppu”, starring popular film star S Surya and Trisha. The bench said while addressing a legal conference in Kollam (Kerala), former Chief Justice of India Bharucha implied that 20 per cent of the judges in the country were corrupt.
The startling statement made by the Bhushans (father and son duo) was still in public memory. “We would not go that far. We refuse to even endorse such sweeping statements. But, we do know and have come across instances of judicial corruption. The Full Court of the Madras High Court regularly shows the exit door to such black sheep.
The Supreme Court acknowledged in the high court of judicature at Bombay -vs- V.Shirish Kumar Rangrao Patil that the cancerous cells of corruption constantly keep creeping into the vital veins of the judiciary.
It was also observed that the need to stem it out by judicial surgery lies on the judiciary itself by its self imposed or corrective measures or disciplinary action under Article 235 of the Constitution.
Corruption in the judiciary cannot be committed without some members of the Bar becoming privy to the corrupt. The vigilant watch by the High Court is the sustaining stream to catch the corrupt and to deal with the situation appropriately,” the bench added.
The bench said the “situs” of the movie was a court located in a place called Seven Wells and the presiding officer was shown as corrupt. An unethical advocate wields immense power over the functioning of the Court. “The question that calls for consideration is whether on account of such a portrayal, we should direct the authorities to ban the continued screening of the movie. Our answer is a firm ‘No’. And, there are more reasons than one for arriving at such a conclusion”, the bench added.
The bench said the unholy alliance between an unethical lawyer and a corrupt judge was a theme of the movie. One of the judges, (GR Swaminathan, J) has seen the movie in a theatre (the producer was not called upon to arrange any special screening).
It was true that the portrayal of the system in the movie was grossly exaggerated. But that was the way movies were produced in Tamil. The hero will single-handedly vanquish a dozen villains who surround him.
Everything was melodramatic in Tamil cinema. Therefore, ‘Karuppu’ should also be considered that way. In any event, the artist was entitled to present things in his own way and that was artistic licence, the bench added.
The bench said the Censor Board could decline to grant sanction for the public exhibition of a movie on the ground that it involves contempt of court. But when the Censor Board itself was not of the view that the film involves contempt of court and had issued a certificate, the Writ Court will not substitute its opinion.
The bench said judges need not be treated as holy cows and in Sheela Barse -vs- Union of India, it was observed that criticism of judicial functioning was a healthy aid for introspection and improvement.
Judiciary was not exempt from criticism. Judicial institutions were, and should be made of stronger stuff. Debates of public issues should be uninhibited, robust and wide open.
It may well include vehement, sarcastic and sometimes unpleasant sharp criticism of government and public officials (D.C.Saxena -vs- Chief Justice of India, 1996). “We would add by including courts and judges also. Judges were not above criticism,” the bench added.
