LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Kodungallur Film Society & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.

Writ Petition (Civil) · 2018 INSC 917Decided 1 Oct 2018
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 330 of 2018
Chief Justice Dipak Misra · Justice A.M. Khanwilkar · Dr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud

Background

A registered film society and one of its members filed this writ petition after a wave of mob violence, threats, and protests (most notably around the release of the film "Padmaavat") targeted cinemas and cultural venues, with fringe groups acting as unlawful "super censors" to block exhibition of films duly certified under the Cinematograph Act. The petitioners sought enforcement of the Court's earlier guidelines in "In Re: Destruction of Public and Private Properties v. Govt. of AP" (2009) on compensating for riot damage, plus new directions on police accountability, FIR registration, bail conditions tied to deposited compensation, and liability of organisers/leaders who incite such violence.

Decision Breakdown

The Court held that violent suppression of lawful artistic expression strikes at the core of constitutional freedom of speech (Article 19(1)(a)) and that the State must act decisively rather than let a "law and order" excuse become a backdoor ban. Rather than simply reiterating the 2009 guidelines, it extended and adapted the comprehensive preventive, remedial, and punitive framework it had recently laid down in Tehseen Poonawalla v. Union of India (on mob lynching) to this context of protests against cultural events, covering structural/preventive steps (Nodal Officers, Rapid Response Teams, cyber-reporting portals), victim remedies (crowd-control measures, prompt FIRs, arrests, deposit-linked bail), organiser/leader liability for incited violence, police accountability (status reports, departmental action for inaction, mandatory appeals against acquittals), and a compensation mechanism for loss of life or property. It directed the Central and State Governments to implement these measures within eight weeks and disposed of the writ petition on these terms.

Lesson Learnt

No private group, however aggrieved by a film, book, or artwork, has the legal right to use threats or violence to stop its lawful public exhibition: the Constitution protects artistic freedom, and the State is legally obligated to proactively prevent such mob censorship, swiftly prosecute instigators (including organisation leaders, not just the people on the ground), and compensate victims, rather than simply banning the targeted event to "avoid trouble."

Official source (sci.gov.in)View Judgment (PDF)

More rulings in Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawSupreme Court of India

Federation of Medical and Sales Representatives Associations of India & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

This is an interim order, not a final judgment. The Court recorded the Union of India's proposal to set up a fresh three-member Committee to examine the issue and recommend a regulatory or statutory framework. It directed the Union to constitute the Committee within two weeks, directed the Committee to consult the petitioners, intervenors and other stakeholders and report within two months of its first meeting, and asked the Union to file a compliance affidavit. Citing the separation of powers, the Court declined to decide for itself whether the Code should become law, and listed the matter on 29 January 2027.

Decided 8 Oct 2026Read case
Constitutional LawDelhi High Court

Sirajuddin Qureshi & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors.

The Court held that a bank's fear that the petitioners might flee, or its unresolved financial claim, cannot by itself justify keeping an LOC alive indefinitely, especially where the petitioners' bail conditions impose no travel curbs and their track record shows no misuse. It quashed the LOCs issued at the banks' instance, while leaving the LOCs issued at CBI's instance to be addressed through an application before the trial court (since those criminal proceedings are still pending there).

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Constitutional LawDelhi High Court

Lawyers Voice vs. Union of India & Ors. and connected matters

The Court dismissed the entire batch, holding that no exceptional circumstance justified registering further FIRs, setting up an independent investigative mechanism, ordering wholesale further investigation into police conduct, issuing blanket evidence-preservation directions, or granting further compensation or rehabilitation directions. It noted that more than six years had passed since the riots, that compensation had largely been disbursed, and that statutory remedies remained available to victims. The Court made clear this was without prejudice to any individual's right to pursue remedies in law, and dismissed the petitions with no order as to costs.

Decided 5 Oct 2026Read case
Constitutional LawDelhi High Court

Shayaan Mujeeb vs. State & Ors. and connected matters

The Court dismissed the entire batch of petitions after finding that the allegations about the December 2019 events had already been examined by a competent statutory body and were being investigated under the ordinary criminal law, with related proceedings pending before competent courts. The Court held there was no ground for an independent inquiry mechanism, transfer of investigation, registration of new criminal cases, award of compensation, fresh guidelines, or further consequential directions. It also held that Article 226 of the Constitution is meant for enforcing enforceable legal rights, not for open-ended directions. The petitions were dismissed with no order as to costs, and any individual may still pursue remedies available in law.

Decided 5 Oct 2026Read case
Constitutional LawDelhi High Court

Pushpendra Singh Parmar vs. President/Vice President/General Secretary, ICSI

The Court held that the dispute was, at its core, a personal grievance between the petitioner and a private company (UC Web Mobile Pvt. Ltd.), not a matter properly brought before the Court under Article 226's extraordinary writ jurisdiction. It held that Article 226 is not meant to be a forum for airing personal disputes or pursuing a private adversary merely because a representation went unanswered. The petition was dismissed, with liberty given to the petitioner to pursue appropriate legal remedies directly against the company.

Decided 29 Sept 2026Read case
Constitutional LawDelhi High Court

Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Limited & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors.

Relying on its own 2025 ruling on a near-identical earlier notification concerning the same drug combination, the Court held that since the notification used the word "shall" without any express provision for retrospective effect, and took effect only upon Gazette publication, it operates prospectively from 18.08.2026 and cannot be applied to stock manufactured earlier. The Court disposed of the petition on terms: Glenmark must label all stock made after 18.08.2026, publish clear public notices in one English and one Hindi national newspaper and issue advisories to doctors, chemists and retailers within two weeks, and file an affidavit detailing pre-notification stock within four weeks, subject to which no coercive recall action under Section 28B would be taken against it.

Decided 18 Sept 2026Read case