The Madras High Court has declined to stop the release of the Tamil film Parasakthi, rejecting an urgent plea by a writer who alleged that the movie copied his registered script. The court held that, at this interim stage, there was no clear basis to conclude that copyright infringement had taken place and that stopping the film’s release would cause disproportionate harm.
The order was passed by Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy on January 2, 2026.
Background of the Case
The dispute arose from a civil suit filed by K.V. Rajendran, also known as Varun Rajendran, who claimed authorship of a script titled Chemmozhi. According to him, the script-running into 56 pages-was registered with the South Indian Film Writers’ Association (SWAN) in January 2010.
Read also:- Supreme Court Rejects Curative Pleas in Land Acquisition Case, Says No Grounds Within Limited Review Scope
Rajendran alleged that the upcoming film Parasakthi, produced by Dawn Pictures Private Limited and written by Sudha Kongara, Arjun Nadesan, and Mathimaran Pugazhendhi, was based on his work. He approached the court seeking two urgent interim reliefs:
- an order restraining the producer from releasing or screening the film in theatres or on OTT platforms, and
- a direction to SWAN to constitute an expert committee to compare the two scripts and submit a report.
The film is scheduled for release on January 10, 2026.
Counsel for the plaintiff argued that Chemmozhi was deeply rooted in the history of the anti-Hindi agitation in Tamil Nadu and was a product of years of research and interaction with people involved in that movement.
It was contended that the defendants’ replies did not specifically deny the detailed description of the plaintiff’s script set out in the plaint. The plaintiff also pointed out that he had complained to SWAN in January 2025 after learning about the film project.
Read also:- Supreme Court Rejects Goregaon Pearl Society's Curative Pleas, Ends Long-Running Housing Dispute
The writer urged the court to prevent the release of the film until an expert comparison was conducted, stating that once released, the damage to his rights would be irreversible.
Senior counsel appearing for the filmmakers strongly denied any copying. They argued that the story, characters, narrative structure, dialogues, and emotional tone of Parasakthi were entirely different.
“The screenplay and cinematic treatment bear no resemblance whatsoever to the plaintiff’s alleged work,” the producer stated in its affidavit, adding that the film was independently conceived.
The defence also highlighted the delay in filing the suit. The plaintiff admitted that he became aware of the film project by late 2023 but approached the court only in December 2025, just weeks before release.
Read also:- Supreme Court Mandates Timelines for Oral Arguments, Issues SOP to Streamline Hearings and Cut Delays
Court’s Observations
The court first examined the scope of the main suit. It noted that the plaintiff had not sought a declaration of copyright infringement. Instead, the permanent relief in the suit was limited to restraining the defendants from projecting certain individuals as writers or creators of the film.
Against this backdrop, Justice Ramamoorthy observed that the interim prayer to completely stop the screening of the movie went far beyond the relief claimed in the suit itself.
On the issue of copyright, the court said that, based on the material currently available, it was “not possible to even reach a prima facie finding” that infringement had occurred. The judge emphasised that copyright disputes often require a deeper examination, usually at trial.
Read also:- Orissa HC Sets Aside JMFC Cognizance Order in ₹70 Lakh Misappropriation Case, Seeks Fresh Reasoned
The court also weighed the balance of convenience. It noted that Parasakthi is a big-budget film involving multiple stakeholders and that halting its release days before launch would cause significant financial loss. The judge observed, “Even if the movie is released, the plaintiff would still be in a position to claim damages, if ultimately successful.”
Delay on the part of the plaintiff further tilted the balance against granting an injunction.
Decision
The High Court dismissed the application seeking to restrain the release and screening of Parasakthi, refusing to grant any interim injunction.
Read also:- Madras HC Admits Plea Challenging DGCA’s December 2025 Exemption to IndiGo, Seeks Record
On the second application, the court directed SWAN to submit its expert report in a sealed cover, as earlier ordered. The judge clarified that the relevance and weight of such a report would be considered at the final stage of the suit.
With these directions, both interim applications were disposed of. The main suit will be taken up later this month.
Case Title: K.V. Rajendran @ Varun Rajendran vs. Sudha Kongara & Ors.
Case No.: O.A. Nos. 1222 & 6458 of 2025 in C.S. (Comm. Div.) No. 344 of 2025
Case Type: Commercial Civil Suit – Copyright Dispute
Decision Date: January 2, 2026
