The Madras high court on Monday quashed criminal proceedings against popular film stars Dhanush and Aishwarya Rajinikanth, which were pending before a magistrate court in the city, for allegedly displaying banners of the Tamil film Velaiyilla Pattadhari, which featured a prominent image of Dhanush smoking a cigarette.
Dhanush, Aiswarya, and three others filed petitions, which were granted by Justice N Anand Venkatesh. Dhanush and Aishwarya were initially charged based on a private allegation lodged by one S Cyril Alexander.
The judge stated in his judgement that the only accusation presented in the complaint in this case is that the movie’s promotional banners contained a prominent image of the lead actor smoking a cigarette.
According to the judge, this act cannot be brought under the purview of Section 5 of the Cigarettes and other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply, and Distribution) Act (COPTA) because the display was not done by persons engaged in the production, supply, or distribution of cigarettes or other tobacco products.
The person pictured smoking a cigarette had no contract with the entity or person engaged in the manufacturing, supply, or distribution of cigarettes or other tobacco products, nor was he marketing their product, according to the judge.
The judge stated that a penal provision must be carefully construed since the consequences of an action performed under the code will affect the life or personal liberty guaranteed by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
“Hence, this court cannot be swayed by emotions and popular beliefs and the court has to necessarily construe the provisions strictly and see if the facts of the case make out an offence. If the facts do not constitute an offence, the court cannot try to expand the scope of the provision by considering the adverse impact that a tobacco or tobacco product can have on the society and particularly the younger generation,” the judge added.
The judge stated that the complainant appeared to believe that because the movie’s producers and distributors were involved in constructing banners/posters depicting the lead actor smoking, this would constitute an infraction under Section 5 of the COTPA.
In this scenario, the producers and distributors were in the movie industry and not in the business of selling cigarettes or other tobacco goods. This crucial gap between what is stated in the provision and what is alleged in the complaint makes all the difference.
“In the light of the above discussions, the continuation of the criminal proceedings as against the accused persons will amount to an abuse of process of court, and hence, it requires interference of this court,” the judge added and quashed the proceedings.