Madras High Court directs TN govt to provide protection for Vijay Devarakonda’s ‘Kingdom’ amid protests
Madras High Court on 7th August, 2025 directed the state government to provide security for theatres which will be screening Vijay Devarakonda movie ‘Kingdom’. This move comes after the Telugu movie faced protests in Madurai and Trichy from Naam Thamizhar Katchi (NTK) cadres for its alleged portrayal of Sri Lankan Tamils in a poor light.
Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy issued the directive stating that the movie makers have the right to express their views and none can disrupt screening of a movie, which is duly certified by the Censor Board, nor threaten the theatre owners against screening.
The court further added that those who have different views can express them through protests but should obtain permission from the Police and hold the stir only at the designated venues. It would be open for them to protest and propagate their own view against the movie’s content.
The judge recollected the orders passed by a division bench of the Madras High Court in the Perumal Murugan case stating it is better to put the book down or refrain from watching the movie.
Justice Chakravarthy recorded the undertaking given by the government advocate on behalf of the police that they will give due protection to the theatres.
He further stated the Police can take appropriate action, if the screening of the movie is disrupted or any theatre owners are threatened against exhibiting the movie by any person.
Bombay High Court Directs CBFC Not To Insist On Film Makers Getting NOC From Yogi Adityanath For Certification Of ‘AJEY’ Movie
The Bombay High Court was 07th August, 2025 informed that the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) has rejected the plea for certification by makers of a movie titled “Ajey: The Untold Story of a Yogi,” based on a book written on the life of UP Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath.
During the hearing, it was submitted by the petitioners that the CEO of the CBFC had told the makers that they should go and meet Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath and get an NOC from him, and the CBFC would certify their film. It was submitted that the chairman said he would help them get an appointment and meet the CM.
A division bench of Justices. Revati Mohite-Dere and Dr Neela Gokhale thus said that the CBFC would need to inform the filmmakers about the grounds of rejection of certification so that the necessary changes could be made.
Notably, the bench had pulled up the CBFC for rejecting the application of the makers without watching the film. The bench had asked the central board as to why it was reluctant to watch the movie before certifying it as the CBFC claimed that it rejected certification after going through the script of the film.
The bench was irked to note that despite making a statement on July 17 that it will take a decision as per norms on the film’s certification, the CBFC did not watch the film and simply rejected the application of the makers.
It was submitted on behalf of CBFC that while the movie is a biopic, with the same name and the same timeline, the makers were saying that it is a fictional story.
When it was pointed out that the movie was based on a book, CBFC submitted that the impact of the book and the impact of a film are very different.
CBFC stated that it had passed a reasonable order and it could not be gone beyond.
Court thus asked the filmmakers to approach the revisional committee, but directed the CBFC to give them detailed reasons for what was found objectionable.
Accordingly, the court directed the makers to file the application before the Revisional Committee on 8th August and then the CBFC’s Revisional Committee will inform them about the objectionable scenes or dialogues, etc. by 11th August.
The bench has further ordered the CBFC to decide by August 13.
Actor Shwetha Menon approaches Kerala High Court seeking to quash FIR
Actor Shwetha Menon approached the Kerala High Court on August 7, 2025 seeking to quash an FIR registered against her by the Ernakulam Central Police on the charge that she performed roles in movies having alleged vulgar and obscene contents for financial gains and that the contents were transmitted via social media and adult sites to gain popularity.
She had thus been charged under Section 67(A) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and under Sections 3 and 5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 based on a complaint by Martin Menachery, an Ernakulam resident, after the Ernakulam Chief Judicial Magistrate Court issued a directive to the police.
Alleging that the FIR was malafide and ill-motivated, Ms. Menon submitted in her petition before the High Court that the movies had been certified by the CBFC and were publicly exhibited years ago.
It is crucial to note that the character that the petitioner portrayed in the film Paleri Manikyam, which the complainant says as obscene, bagged the Kerala State award for best actress. The other films made mention of (by the complainant) too were accepted and appreciated in public domain by their quality as a whole, she said in the petition.
These films were created by artistes who were at the pinnacle of proficiency in their respective fields. An appearance in a condom advertisement too was duly censored and certified and is available in the public domain, she said in the petition.
The FIR against the actor has come at a time when she is contesting for the post of the president of the Association of Malayalam Movie Artistes (AMMA), in the election to the executive committee of the actors’ body to be held on August 15.
SC Admits Google, CCI, ADIF Cross-Appeals in Play Store Antitrust Case, Hearing in November
The Supreme Court on 8th August, 2025 admitted a batch of cross-appeals filed by Google and its affiliates, the Competition Commission of India (CCI) and the Alliance of Digital India Foundation (ADIF) against a National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) order that had partly upheld the regulator’s findings on Google’s Play Store policies.
A bench of Justices P.S. Narasimha and Atul S. Chandurkar said the matter will be listed for hearing in November.
The appeals challenge the NCLAT’s March decision, which largely endorsed the CCI’s core finding that Google abused its dominant position by imposing restrictive Play Store billing rules and giving undue advantage to its own payments product. Google disputes several legal and factual aspects of that judgment and has asked the Supreme Court to review the tribunal’s conclusions.
In a 1 May clarification, the NCLAT reinstated two directions from the CCI order that require Google to disclose certain data-handling policies and refrain from using billing data to secure a competitive advantage, measures Google had objected to. The tribunal held that these obligations could not be revisited as mere corrections. Those reinstated directions are now among the contested issues before the Supreme Court.
The dispute stems from a CCI probe launched in November 2020 into Google’s Play Store billing practices. In October 2022, the CCI imposed penalties and ordered remedies, finding that the mandatory use of the Google Play Billing System (GPBS) and related restrictions harmed competition and disadvantaged app developers. Subsequent appeals reduced or adjusted some monetary penalties but left key behavioural findings intact.
Bombay High Court upholds entertainment duty on convenience fees for online movie tickets
The Bombay High Court on 06th August, 2025 upheld the constitutional validity of a 2014 amendment to the Maharashtra Entertainments Duty Act which allows the State to levy entertainment duty on convenience fees exceeding ₹10 charged by cinema owners or ticketing platforms to facilitate online booking of movie tickets [FICCI-Multiplex Association of India and anr v State of Maharashtra and Ors]
The Court held that convenience fee is an inextricable part of buying ticket online for entertainment and would therefore, fall under the purview of entertainment duty.
The Bombay High Court has upheld the constitutional validity of the seventh proviso inserted into Section 2(b) of the Maharashtra Entertainments Duty Act, which brings within its ambit the additional amount charged by cinema proprietors for online booking of movie tickets. It observed that the activity of online booking is not different from an offline booking and can be taxed under Entry 62 of List II.
A division bench of Justice M.S. Sonak and Justice Jitendra Jain was hearing a batch of petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, challenging the insertion of the seventh proviso in Section 2(b) of the Maharashtra Entertainments Duty Act (MED). The amendment was related to the payment of admission by the proprietors for online ticket booking. Payment of admission is the entertainment duty sought to be levied on the extra amount charged by cinema owners from customers for online booking of movie tickets.
The Court noted that the legislature has acted well within its authority in making the impugned amendment. The Court rejected the objections raised on the grounds of colourable legislation, observing that merely because the Statement of Objects and Reasons state that the amendment is to curb practice of charging excessive convenience fees, it would not make the impugned proviso a colourable legislation by exercising the power of the State under Article 246 (3) read with Entry 62 List II of Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India.
The Court also rejected the petitioners’ argument that the activity of online booking could not be taxed under Entry 62 of List II since it is not a form of entertainment, and the same cannot be achieved by making an amendment to the measure of tax. It observed that Section 2(b)(iv) is a measure of tax, and by the impugned proviso, the legislature has merely sought exclusion of amounts till Rs.10/- and inclusion of more than Rs.10/- as payment of admission. The Court emphasised that in the absence of such a proviso, everything would have been treated as a measure of tax on which the rate of duty specified in Section 3 would have been applicable.
The Court refused to accept the existence of a distinction between online ticket booking and offline ticket booking.
Read order here.
Delhi High Court refuses to stay release of Udaipur Files movie
The Delhi High Court on 7th August, 2025 allowed the release of Udaipur Files, a movie based on the murder of Rajasthan-based tailor Kanhaiya Lal [Mohammed Javed v. Union of India and ors].
The Court passed the order on a plea filed by an accused in the Kanhaiya Lal murder case, on which the film is based.
The court rejected one of the accused in the case Mohammad Javed’s plea for interim relief seeking stay on the release of the film. It however issued notice on the main petition against the order passed by the Union Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB) clearing the certification of the film.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela was hearing the plea filed by Mohammad Javed, accused in the murder case.
In an order passed on 6th August, the MIB dismissed the revision petitions filed by Javed and Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind President Maulana Arshad Madani. This was pursuant to the order passed by the Court. On August 1 the Centre had acceded to withdraw the cuts made to the film and undertook to decide on the film certification by August 06, after the high court had questioned Centre’s power to recommend 6 cuts to the film.
CBFC said that film was faulted only the aspect that Centre’s exercise of jurisdiction is not in accordance with section 6 of Cinematograph Act as revision is a limited jurisdiction.
Meanwhile the petitioner being the accused in the murder trial contended that the film is the direct adaptation of the Kanhaiya Lal murder case and the said depiction would prejudice and hamper his fair trial.
On the contrary, the producers contended that no case for any interim order is made out, adding that tickets have been booked, and movie is scheduled for release on 8th August, 2025. They further contended that producing company had invested its lifetime savings in making the movie, while the film was earlier delayed.
The producers submitted that no direct link had been shown by the petitioner that due to the trial of the accused will be affected. They averred that that the movie is based on the crime but the movie does not claim to be an exact narration of the crime.
The court ultimately held that petitioner has not been able to satisfy the court that a prima facie case is made out in his favour (for interim relief). The producers have invested huge amount in producing the film. In case the exhibition of the film is stayed, the balance of convenience will be disturbed, which in the opinion of the court lies in favour of the producers.
Background
On July 25 the Supreme Court had asked the parties objecting to the release of the movie to approach the Delhi High Court to challenge the Centre’s revisional order which approved the movie’s exhibition with 6 edits.
Kanhaiya Lal Teli, an Udaipur-based tailor, was brutally murdered in June 2022, allegedly by one Mohammad Riyaz and one Mohammad Ghous.
The perpetrators later released a video claiming the murder was in retaliation for Kanhaiya Lal allegedly sharing a social media post in support of Nupur Sharma, former BJP spokesperson, soon after she made controversial comments about the Prophet.
The case was investigated by the National Investigation Agency, and offences under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act and the Indian Penal Code framed against the accused. While the trial is progressing before a Special NIA Court in Jaipur, the movie – based on the case – is sought to be released.
On July 10, the Delhi High Court stayed the release of the film, allowing the petitioners before it to approach the Central Government in revision against the certification granted by the Central Board of Film Certification.
Exempt data fiduciaries from data law’s provisions for training AI models: IAMAI to govt.
The Internet and Mobile Association of India (IAMAI) recently urged the Indian government to temporarily exempt data fiduciaries from certain provisions of the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023 when processing publicly available personal data strictly for the purposes of training or fine-tuning AI models.
According to IAMAI, ambiguities in the law, particularly regarding publicly accessible data, impose practical and compliance challenges for AI companies—especially startups—that rely on large datasets. It is often impractical to determine if data was voluntarily made public or whether it appeared initially due to legal obligation and was later re-shared. This complexity, IAMAI warns, could hinder innovation, raise development costs, and hamper the growth of India’s AI ecosystem.
IAMAI proposes to resolve these issues by recommending either amendments to Section 3(c)(ii)—which currently exempts publicly available personal data—or to invoke Section 17(5) of the Act, which empowers the central government to grant interim exemptions for a specified period.
IAMAI underscores global competitiveness in its plea, noting that countries like the US and China impose fewer regulatory burdens on AI model developers, thereby giving their domestic AI sectors an edge. Notably, some IAMAI members, including Reliance Jio and Culver Max Entertainment, have divergent views on the proposed exemption.
Bombay High Court Dismisses Copyright Suit Against Dream Girl 2, Finds No Protectable Similarity with Plaintiff’s Script
The Bombay High Court dismissed filmmaker Ashim Kumar Bagchi’s interim application seeking to restrain the exploitation of Dream Girl 2 on grounds of copyright infringement and breach of confidence. Bagchi alleged that the film copied substantial elements from his registered script Kal Kisne Dekha (later retitled The Show Must Go On), which he claimed was shared in confidence with some defendants, and that Dream Girl 2 reproduced his character arcs, comedic situations, and scene arrangements. The Court, applying the R.G. Anand test, found that the similarities relied upon were limited to unprotectable elements such as the general idea of gender disguise and financial difficulty, which are stock themes and scènes à faire. It held that the works were materially dissimilar in expression, setting, and core plot, that the plaintiff failed to identify protectable or confidential material with precision, and that access to his work was not convincingly established. Consequently, no prima facie case of infringement or breach of confidence was made out, and the application was dismissed with costs.
Read judgement here