Madras High Court Shields ‘Assi’ on Release Day, Grants Conditional Anti-Piracy Injunction Against ISPs and Cable Operators

Madras High Court Shields ‘Assi’ on Release Day, Grants Conditional Anti-Piracy Injunction Against ISPs and Cable Operators

Introduction

The Madras High Court granted ad-interim relief restraining the unauthorised broadcast of the Bollywood film Assi, starring Taapsee Pannu, on the day of its release. Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy, by order dated February 20, 2026, observed that in such matters irreversible injury is likely to occur unless unlawful broadcast is prevented, while also noting that the expansive nature of the relief sought could potentially affect legitimate business interests of certain respondents.

Factual Background

The suit was instituted by Super Cassettes Industries Pvt. Ltd., the producer of the film Assi. The plaintiff sought to prevent unauthorised broadcast and dissemination of the film through internet service providers and cable TV operators on the date of its theatrical release.

As evidence of ownership, the plaintiff placed on record the CBFC certificate, which described it as the producer of the film. Promotional material was also relied upon to demonstrate that the movie was scheduled for release on the same day the matter was heard.

The plaintiff contended that if unauthorized broadcasts were not restrained immediately, it would result in substantial and irreparable harm, particularly given the vulnerability of films to piracy on release day.

Procedural Background

Super Cassettes Industries Pvt. Ltd. filed two applications seeking interim injunctions against various internet service providers and cable television operators to prevent unauthorised streaming, broadcasting, or distribution of the film.

Upon consideration of the applications and the documents placed on record, the Court proceeded to determine whether ad-interim relief ought to be granted pending further proceedings. Notice was issued to the respondents, and private notice was also permitted.

Issues

1. Whether the plaintiff had established a prima facie case for grant of ad-interim injunction restraining unauthorised broadcast of the film.

2. Whether irreparable injury would result if such interim protection was not granted on the release day.

3. Whether the scope of relief sought required safeguards to protect legitimate business interests of respondents.

Contentions of the Parties

The plaintiff contended that it was the lawful producer and rights holder of the film, as evidenced by the CBFC certificate. It submitted that films are particularly susceptible to piracy on the date of release and that unauthorised broadcast would cause irreversible injury in terms of revenue loss and dilution of exclusive rights.

The plaintiff therefore sought urgent ad-interim injunctions against internet service providers and cable TV operators to restrain unlawful dissemination.

The Court, while considering the breadth of the relief sought, noted that the expansive nature of the injunction might potentially affect legitimate business interests of one or more respondents.

Reasoning and Analysis

The Court observed that in matters concerning film releases and potential piracy, the likelihood of irreversible injury is significant if unlawful broadcast is not promptly restrained. Given the timing of the release and the documentary evidence of ownership placed on record, the Court was satisfied that a prima facie case had been made out.

However, the Court also acknowledged that the sweeping nature of the relief sought could inadvertently impact legitimate activities of certain respondents. Balancing these considerations, the Court deemed it appropriate to impose a condition of indemnification.

It was directed that the plaintiff shall indemnify any respondent whose legitimate business interests may be adversely affected by the injunction. This safeguard was considered necessary to balance the competing interests pending further adjudication.

Decision

Subject to the condition of indemnification, the Madras High Court granted ad-interim injunctions restraining unauthorised broadcast, streaming, or dissemination of the film Assi until March 11, 2026. Notice was issued to the respondents, and private notice was permitted.

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