Madras High Court clears the way for Tamil Film Producers Council elections

The Madras High Court has paved the way for holding the elections on February 22, 2026 by dismissing an application jointly filed by four members of the Tamil Film Producers Council (TFPC), who had urged the court to grant an interim injunction against the elections.

Justice P. Dhanabal also refused to interfere with the council’s decision, which had been passed by retired High Court judge S. Rajeswaran as the returning officer and rejected another application filed for appointment of another retired judge to conduct the elections.

The judge agreed with TFPC’s lawyer Krishna Ravindran that the four applicants, G. Srinivasan, I. John Max, P. Ranjit Kumar and AK Michael, who had already submitted applications for the post of executive member, have not made out a prima facie case for grant of injunction.

He also agreed with counsel’s submissions that neither the balance of convenience was in favor of the four applicants nor had they proved any irreparable harm that might have been caused had a pre-trial interim injunction not been granted in their favor before the hearing of their case.

Justice Dhanbal further pointed out that the applicants have not made any allegations against Mr. Rajeswaran but have pointed out that he had worked as an election officer during the previous elections also. Therefore, it was unnecessary to interrupt the process midway and appoint another officer, he said.

The judge also noted that the general body of the association had decided to appoint Mr. Rajeswaran as the election officer for 2026-29. All the four applicants before the High Court had attended the general body meeting but had not raised any objection there to such appointment.

The judge said, after the appointment and declaration of the scheduled election by the Returning Officer, the plaintiffs had submitted nominations before the same Returning Officer expressing their desire to contest the election for the post of Member of the Executive Committee and then filed a suit against the election process.

Dismissing both, Justice Dhanbal said, “Therefore, once the applicants have filed nominations accepting the appointment of the Returning Officer, they cannot subsequently reject the same without any valid ground. No ground has been sought by the applicants for allowing these applications.”

He also wrote, “Since the election process has commenced, the voters’ list has been finalized and the date of election has also been fixed, it is not appropriate to appoint any other returning officer at this stage. The applicants are not entitled to any relief through these applications and, therefore, these applications have no merit and deserve to be dismissed.”