CHENNAI: The Madras High Court has refused to restrain the release of the film Parasakthi, starring actors Sivakarthikeyan, Ravi Mohan, and Atharvaa.
Parasakthi, directed by Sudha Kongara and produced by Aakash Baskaran under the banner of Dawn Pictures, is scheduled for release on January 10.
In this situation, KV Rajendran, an assistant director, has filed a petition before the Madras High Court seeking a ban on the release of the film, alleging that the film was made by stealing his story titled Chemmozhi.
When the case came up for hearing before Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy the petitioner’s counsel, Purushothaman, argued that the petitioner had written a story titled Chemmozhi, centered on the 1965 anti-Hindi agitation, and registered it with the South Indian Film Writers’ Association in 2010. He further argued that this story had been used to make Parasakthi. Therefore, he requested that the director Sudha Kongara’s name should not be shown as the story writer and that the film should be banned from release.
Senior Counsels PS Raman and PH Arvindh Pandian, along with advocate Vijayan Subramanian, appearing for director Sudha Kongara and the production company, argued that the story of Parasakthi had been registered by the director in 2020. They contended that there was no similarity between the petitioner’s Chemmozhi and Parasakthi, either in story or screenplay. They also submitted that the petitioner had produced no evidence to support the allegation of story theft, and that imposing a ban on a film produced at great expense would cause severe loss.
After hearing both sides, the judge observed that although information about the production of Parasakthi had been known since 2024, the petitioner had filed the case only in December 2025. Therefore, the court ruled that it could not restrain the release of the film and dismissed the petition.
The judge also noted that although the court had earlier directed the South Indian Film Writers’ Association to examine both stories Parasakthi and Chemmozhi and submit a report, the report had still not been filed. Therefore, the court directed that the report be submitted in a sealed cover and adjourned further hearing on the main case to January 28.