Dismissed

L.K.Charles Alexander v. The Secretary to the Government

Madras HC30 Mar 2023WP/9825/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed a writ petition filed by a lawyer seeking mandamus against film authorities alleging misrepresentation of a character in a movie. The petition was rejected because the petitioner had not read the source novel to substantiate his claims.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed with consequential closure of a connected writ; no costs are imposed.

L.K.Charles Alexander Vs The Secretary to the… — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

WP No.9825 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 30.03.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.T.RAJA, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY

¶8

WP No.9825 of 2023

¶9

L.K.Charles Alexander

¶10

... petitioner

¶11

versus

¶12

1.The Secretary to Government, Government of India, Ministry of Culture, 502-C Wing, Shastri Bhavan, New Delhi 110001

¶13

2.The Director General of Archaeological Survey of India, Dharohar Bhavan, 24 Tilak Marg, New Delhi 110001

¶14

3.The Chair Person, Central Board of Film Certification, Film Division Complex, Phase 1 Building, 9^th Floor, Dr.G.Deshmukh Marg, Mumbai 400026

¶15

4.The Secretary to Government, Government of Tamil Nadu, Information Technology Department, Fort St.George, Chennai 9

¶16

Page 1 of 6

¶17

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶18

WP No.9825 of 2023

¶19

5.Regional Officer, Regional Office, Central Board for Film Certification 5^th Floor, Shastri Bhavan, 26-Haddows Road, Chennai 6

¶20

6.The Director General of Police, Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai 600004.

¶21

7.The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, Vepery, Chennai 7

¶22

8.Director Maniratnam, Madras Talkies, No.15/8, Crescent Avenue, Kesavaperumal Puram, Gandhi Nagar, Raja Annamalaipuram, Chennai 600020 ... Respondents

¶23

Prayer: Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Mandamus directing respondents 4 to 6 to take appropriate action as against 8^th respondent based on petitioner's representation dated 01.10.2022, 07.10.2022.

¶24

For the Petitioner : Mr.L.K.Charles Alexander, Party-in-person

¶25

For the Respondents : Mr.P.Muthukumar, State Government Pleader, for respondents 4, 6 and 7

¶26

Ms.V.Sudha, Central Government Standing Counsel for respondents 1 and 2

¶27

Page 2 of 6

¶28

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶29

WP No.9825 of 2023

¶30

ORDER

¶31

(Made by the Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice)

¶32

Mr.L.K.Charles Alexander, a practising Advocate, has filed this writ petition, styled as a ‘public interest litigation’.

¶33

The grievance of the petitioner is that when novelist Kalki Krishnamurthi’s ‘Ponniyin Selvan’ novel has been taken as a movie, directed by Mr.K.Maniratnam, instead of picturizing the entire Ponniyin Selvan story to the viewers in Part I and Part II, the director has completely misrepresented the role of Vandhiyathevan.

¶34

It is at this stage, to know the better part of the allegation made by the petitioner, who appeared in-person, the Court posed a question whether the petitioner has read the novel in full. The petitioner fairly admitted that he has not read the full novel. When the petitioner, who is a practising advocate, comes to this Court asking for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing respondents 4 to 6 to take appropriate action against the eight respondent, based on his representations, that the director of the movie has

¶35

Page 3 of 6

¶36

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶37

WP No.9825 of 2023

¶38

misrepresented the character of ‘Vandhiyathevan’, without even reading the novel, we are unable to find any merit or justification in the contention of the petitioner that the character of ‘Vandhiyathevan’ has been misrepresented in the movie. Therefore, without knowing the full story, the petitioner ought not to have approached this Court, complaining misrepresentation of a character.

¶39

The writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. Consequently, WMP No.9903 of 2023 is closed. We refrain from imposing cost on the petitioner since he is a practising advocate.

¶40

(T.R., ACJ.) (D.B.C., J.) 30.03.2023 Index : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No tar

¶41

Page 4 of 6

¶42

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶43

WP No.9825 of 2023

¶44

¶45

1.The Secretary to Government, Government of India, Ministry of Culture, 502-C Wing, Shastri Bhavan, New Delhi 110001

¶46

2.The Director General of Archaeological Survey of India, Dharohar Bhavan, 24 Tilak Marg, New Delhi 110001

¶47

3.The Chair Person, Central Board of Film Certification, Film Division Complex, Phase 1 Building, 9^th Floor, Dr.G.Deshmukh Marg, Mumbai 400026

¶48

4.The Secretary to Government, Government of Tamil Nadu, Information Technology Department, Fort St.George, Chennai 9

¶49

5.Regional Officer, Regional Office, Central Board for Film Certification 5^th Floor, Shastri Bhavan, 26-Haddows Road, Chennai 6

¶50

6.The Director General of Police, Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai 600004.

¶51

7.The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, Vepery, Chennai 7

¶52

Page 5 of 6

¶53

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶54

WP No.9825 of 2023

¶55

T.RAJA, ACJ, and D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.

(tar)

WP No.9825 of 2023

30.03.2023

Page 6 of 6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

L.K.Charles Alexander v. The Secretary to the Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

L.K.Charles Alexander v. The Secretary to the Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramco Cements Limited Vs State of Tamil Nadu

L.Sriraman Vs State of Tamil Nadu

V. Rathinavelu Vs State of Tamil Nadu

S.Ramasamy Vs a.Jayaprakash

V. Kamalakannan Vs The Additional Chief Secretary/Commissioner

Sitaraman Ravi Vs the Arbitrator and District Collector