Madras High Court Restrains ISPs, Cable Operators From Unauthorized Broadcast of ‘The Kerala Story 2’ Ahead of Release

The Madras High Court has granted an ad-interim injunction restraining internet service providers and cable television

Update: 2026-03-13 07:00 GMT


Madras High Court Restrains ISPs, Cable Operators From Unauthorized Broadcast of ‘The Kerala Story 2’ Ahead of Release

Introduction

The Madras High Court has granted an ad-interim injunction restraining internet service providers and cable television operators from unlawfully broadcasting the cinematographic film “The Kerala Story 2.

Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy held that preventive protection was necessary to avoid irreversible injury arising from unauthorized broadcasts, particularly since the film was scheduled for release. The Court, however, made the injunction conditional upon the producer providing indemnity to the respondents in view of the broad nature of the relief sought.

Factual Background

Sunshine Pictures Limited, the producer of the cinematographic film “The Kerala Story 2,” approached the High Court seeking protection against apprehended copyright infringement. The producer submitted that it was the lawful owner of the copyright in the film and relied on the certificate issued by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC), which recorded it as the producer of the film.

The film was slated for theatrical release on the date of the hearing. The plaintiff apprehended that unauthorized broadcasts by various internet service providers and cable TV operators could occur immediately upon release, causing significant commercial loss and damage to its rights.

Procedural Background

Sunshine Pictures Limited filed a suit before the Madras High Court seeking urgent interim relief restraining internet service providers and cable television operators from broadcasting the film without authorization. The plaintiff requested an injunction to prevent piracy and unauthorized telecasts of the film through digital and cable networks. The matter came before the Court for consideration of interim protection pending further proceedings.

Issues

1. Whether the plaintiff was entitled to interim protection against the apprehended unauthorized broadcast of the film.

2. Whether preventive injunctive relief could be granted at the threshold in cases involving potential copyright infringement.

3. Whether the expansive nature of the relief sought required safeguards to protect the legitimate interests of the respondents.

Contentions of the Parties

The plaintiff contended that it was the owner of the copyright in the film and that unauthorized broadcasts could cause serious and irreparable financial loss, particularly during the initial release period.

It argued that preventive protection was necessary to ensure that the film was not unlawfully broadcast or distributed through digital or cable networks immediately after release.

Reasoning and Analysis

The Court observed that in cases involving cinematographic works, unauthorized broadcasts at the time of release can result in irreversible injury to the copyright holder. The Court therefore held that it was necessary to prevent potential unlawful broadcasts at the threshold to safeguard the plaintiff’s rights. At the same time, the Court noted that the wide scope of the relief sought—covering multiple service providers and cable operators—could potentially affect the legitimate business interests of the respondents. To balance these competing considerations, the Court held that the plaintiff must indemnify the respondents against any loss that might arise due to the operation of the injunction.

Decision

The Madras High Court granted an ad-interim injunction restraining internet service providers and cable television operators from broadcasting the film “The Kerala Story 2” without authorization. The injunction was made subject to the condition that the plaintiff indemnify the respondents for any potential loss arising from the order. The interim protection will remain in force until March 23, 2026, and the matter has been listed for further hearing on the same date.

In this case the plaintiff was represented by Advocate T.Pandiyan for P.K.Law Firm.

Tags:    

By: - Kashish Singh

Similar News