🎬 Sarkar, 2018: The Film About a Stolen Vote — and the Scenes That Were Muted

Directed by A.R. Murugadoss and produced by Sun Pictures, Sarkar starred Vijay as Sundar Ramasamy, a corporate chief who flies home to vote and discovers someone has already voted in his name. He fights to get his vote back — and then takes on the political system itself. Full film page: Sarkar (2018).

In the film, Sundar invokes Rule 49P of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961. It is a real rule: if someone has already voted in your name, you can prove your identity to the Presiding Officer and cast a “tendered ballot”. Tendered votes are kept separately in a sealed cover and are not counted in the normal result, but they create an official record of the impersonation — useful if the result is challenged.

Soon after the release, the then ruling AIADMK objected to a scene in which government-supplied appliances such as mixers and grinders are thrown into a fire — seen as a reference to free-appliance schemes — and to the villain’s name, Komalavalli, which some linked to former Chief Minister J. Jayalalithaa. Party workers protested outside theatres in several towns, and banners were damaged (The Quint).

On 9 November 2018, with the CBFC’s permission, the producer and director made voluntary changes to the certified film (The Quint):

• The visuals of the mixer and grinder being thrown into the fire were removed.
• The name “Komala” in “Komalavalli” was muted and removed from the subtitles.
• Two references — to the Public Works Department and to “56 years” — were muted.

The revised version ran in theatres, and the immediate controversy died down. The film was a major box-office success.

Director A.R. Murugadoss sought anticipatory bail amid fears of arrest. On 9 November 2018 the Madras High Court directed the police not to arrest him until 27 November, and later extended the protection while it heard the case.

• Article 19(1)(a) guarantees freedom of speech and expression — films included. Article 19(2) allows only “reasonable restrictions” on specific grounds such as public order, decency or defamation.
• Films are certified by the CBFC under the Cinematograph Act, 1952 (amended in 2023, adding UA 7+, UA 13+ and UA 16+ ratings).
• In S. Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram (1989) the Supreme Court held that free expression cannot be suppressed because of threats of protest — the State must protect it.
• In Prakash Jha Productions v. Union of India (2011) the Court held that a state cannot ban a film that the CBFC has already certified; law and order is the state’s duty.

• Your vote is yours. Rule 49P exists to protect it — know it and use it.
• Certified films deserve protection from pressure after release; disagreement belongs in debate, not on torn banners.
• Satire about schemes is part of democracy. Governments are stronger when they answer criticism with facts.