The above named plaintiff humbly submits the following pliant for this Honourable Courts perusal and

consideration which is as follows: 1. Name of the Plaintiff. 2. Address for service on the Plaintiff. 3. Name of the Defendants. 4. Address for service on the Defendants. 5. Cause and case of the Plaintiff. a) It is humbly submitted that on the basis of the public interest litigation filed by one sitting M.P., then the Honourable High Court of Judicature of Madras transferring the investigation to CBI, who investigated the said case, launched the prosecution against Forest Officials, Revenue People and Police Officials.
b)

The said trial originally began at Coimbatore, CBI Court which was latter on transferred to the Krishnagiri Sessions Court because at the time of transfer the Dharmapuri District being undivided had Krishnagiri as the legal headquarters on the orders of the Honourable High Court of Judicature of Madras which was finally heard and decided by the Learned Principal Sessions Judge of Dharmapuri on ------------. The trial was decided by the said Learned Judge in the case of S.C.No 201---of

c)

In the case on hand the alleged incidents in respect of which the prosecution had been launched was associated in respect of the rights to protect the first wealth of the Dharmapuri District where the persons associated with Vachathi Village had been

evading law and arrest fleeing away from law avoiding the warrants to be executed.
d)

In pursuance of the order of warrant given by the proper court which was sought to be implemented and to recover any hidden sandal wood that might be hidden the mass raid was conducted. Thus the action complained and prosecuted had the authority of the court. As per the police manual any act done in pursuance of the warrant no suit or trial can lie against the police officials and others associated with the execution of the warrant.

e)

In respect of this incident alone the all accused who were said to have been involved in such incidents, the intervenors had misused the sympathy created by the certain groups of people where the prosecution was launched, conducted and the alleged accused including the plaintiff were convicted without following the well established procedural law namely without obtaining the sanction for prosecution of a Government servant which cannot be done. It is humbly submitted the prosecution of the officials including the plaintiff has resulted in the miscarriage of justice and all these are to be pleaded in this suit of the actions of the defendants.

f) This miscarriage of justice that has been resulted had been appealed to the Honourable High Court of Judicature of Madras where series of appeals of all convicted persons have been taken on file which is pending.
g)

This being the backdrop of the case, the defendants of this suit have jointly combined together for a venture sum business namely shooting of a film alleged to be based on the above case

of prosecution which is pending where it has been stated that the file would be shot within the village Vachathi and the precincts of the village Vachathi and in and around the Sitheri Hills which is within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court.
h)

The alleged shooting of the film is said to have began on ----.

i) The said film further claims that it would be a true depiction of the alleged incident said to have taken place at Vachathi Village.
j)

The above named defendants by their advertisements in the media and materials that have appeared in the internet have planned to portrayed a film said to be in respect of the incidents alleged to have been taken place at Vachathi Village in the year 1992.

k)

The said film is said to be produced on the joint venture of persons by name Selvakumari and Rathna Ramesh under the banners of Kumarai Talkies and Rathna Films.

l) The director of this film is by name Sri Ravi Thambi who is said to have director of films like Rikshaw Thambi and Uyire Ennodu Kalanthuvidu.
m) It

is a film as per the director Ravi Thambis own words as

appearing in the net which reads as follows,

Vachathi, the movie, will focus on the life of a girl who is a victim of assault during the 1992 incident, and how the ghosts of that sour incident continue to haunt her future post her wedding, Ravi Thambi further says, Most parts of the movie will be shot in Vachathi, where elaborate sets to recreate the hamlet as it were two decades ago are being erected. In order to ensure accuracy in the discussions with the locals, policemen, politicians and advocates involved, he said.

n) Hence indubitably the said shooting of the said film is in respect of a case in which appeal is pending before the Honourable High Court of Judicature of Madras, Principal Bench, Chennai of which this plaintiff is one of the appellants.
o)

The director Ravi Thambi knows fully well that any matter which is res subjudice should not be filmed which he has narrated to one person which has appeared in the internet under the web Express Buzz which is said to have been posted by one person Sharadha Narayanan on 18th November of 2011 where the said incident relating to the matter being res subjudice is captioned as Vachathi case to be retold on screen.

p) The shooting of the film in respect of the matter being res subjudice is prohibited is very well known to the said director Ravi Thambi because in the said internet message it appears as,
It was an idea that germinated more than a year ago, when I wanted to make a serious film. I waited for the judgement to be delivered in September this year, and then finalised my script.

q) Hence when an appeal is pending the judgement having not become final and the judgement both in law and in fact has been construed to be the continuation of the trial proceedings which even according to the said director cannot be filmed when the matter is pending before any court of law. r) The entire film is to be based on the matter which is res subjudice and the film Vachathi the title of the alleged film is in respect of the very same incident is writ large as per the wordings appearing in the Express News Service as noted below,

CHENNAI: It was an incident unknown for a fortnight after it happened, but created a sensation that remained etched in memory for decades after, largely because of the brutalities involved. The Vachathi assault case, in which adivasi tribes were assaulted and brutally manhandled by forest, police and revenue personnel in the eponymous hamlet in Dharmapuri district in 1992, will soon be captured for the silver screen. Shooting for the film, titled Vachathi, will begin in the cursed hamlet at the foothills of the Sitheri Hills, on November 21.

s) The Indian Constitution gives the right to freedom of speech and expression as per Article-19.
t)

This Article-19 of the Indian Constitution guarantees six freedoms, but are however not absolute because absolute individual rights cannot be guaranteed by any modern state. It is humbly submitted an organised society is the precondition of civil liberties, hence there cannot be any right which is injurious to the community as a whole.

u) It is humbly submitted that the Learned Author Willis in his book Constitutional law and United States has opined that if people were given complete and absolute liberty without any social control result would be ruin. v) Hence only the constitutional makers have made a reasonable restriction while guaranteeing the above freedom. w) It is humbly submitted that Article-19 of the Indian Constitution says that all citizens shall have the right freedom of speech and expression but subject to Constitution of Article-19(2) where the freedom of expression were to transgress, public order, decency, morality, deformation, incitement offence the alleged right to expression cannot be allowed.
x)

It is humbly submitted even commercial advertisement is also a part of freedom of speech as opined by the Honourable

Supreme Court in the case of Tata Press Ltd., versus Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd., reported in (1995) 5 SCC 139, where a 3 member bench held so, on the otherhand in the case of the historic judgement in R.Rajagopal versus State of Tamilnadu reported (1994) 6 SCC 632, popularly called as Auto Sankar case where the Honourable Supreme Court held that no action could be initiated against the press if the publication was based on public records including court records. y) In the present case as the matter being res subjudice the alleged publication if allowed to continue will not alone hamper the plaintiffs right and will also hinder him where the film may also cause a publication which will amount to defamation. z) In the very same judgement cited supra it has been held that the press has a right to publish the autobiography of Auto Sankar as it appears from the public records but if it were to travel beyond that publishing the life story of Auto Sankar invading his right to privacy will be liable for the consequences. aa)If the said film is allowed to be shot it will result in the inclusion into the privacy of all the appellants including that of the plaintiff.
bb)

Thus the right to privacy as guaranteed under Article-21

of the Indian Constitution is being violated and will be violated if the shooting is allowed to be continued.
cc) Thus

the plaintiff has a right to protect the life and liberty and

the defendants have no right to intrude into the life and liberty

of the appellants of Vachathis case including that of this plaintiff. 6. Cause of Action. 7. Jurisdiction. 8. Limitation. 9. Court Fees.. 10. Prayer. Hence it is humbly prayed that this Honourable Court may be pleased to declare that
1.

the defendants have no right to shoot the alleged film Vachathi, alleged to be based on 1992 incident till the appeal is finally complete not alone the appeal pending at the High Court of Judicature of Madras but also including any appeal that would be made to the Supreme Court by any of the parties,

2. The cost of the suit proceedings and

3.

Pass such other reliefs as this Honourable Court deems fit and just in the circumstances of the case

and thus justice be rendered.