DailyBeat

India's Largest Digital News Media

Supreme Court Clears Release of Kamal Haasan’s ‘Thug Life’: Says ‘Mob Rule Can’t Prevail’

Spread the love

The Supreme Court of India intervened to allow the release of Kamal Haasan’s Tamil film Thug Life in Karnataka, issuing a strong statement that law and order cannot be dictated by mob threats. The Court emphasized that once a film is approved by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC), no unofficial ban or intimidation should prevent its screening.


Film Pulled After Public Backlash

The controversy began when Kamal Haasan made a promotional statement claiming that the Kannada language has roots in Tamil. This sparked outrage among certain groups in Karnataka, with some threatening to attack theatres that planned to show the film. In response, many cinema halls in the state chose not to screen Thug Life, despite the film being cleared by the CBFC.

A public interest litigation (PIL) was filed by Bengaluru resident M. Mahesh Reddy, challenging the informal ban and alleging that authorities had succumbed to pressure from violent protestors rather than protecting constitutional rights.


Supreme Court Steps In

A bench comprising Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Manmohan heard the plea and took a firm position against the suppression of creative expression through threats and fear. Justice Bhuyan remarked that street mobs cannot be allowed to override the law. Justice Manmohan added that a film with CBFC certification has the legal right to be released, and such threats should not influence its screening.

The Court transferred the matter from the Karnataka High Court to itself and directed the Karnataka government to submit a detailed reply by June 19.


Criticism of High Court’s Stance

The Supreme Court also criticized the Karnataka High Court’s earlier suggestion that Kamal Haasan issue an apology for his remarks as a way to resolve the issue. The bench firmly stated that it is not the role of courts to pressure individuals into apologizing for expressing opinions.

The justices pointed out that disagreements should be addressed through civil discourse, not through violent reactions or demands for censorship. They stressed that legal certification by the CBFC cannot be overridden by any external force.


Reinforcing Constitutional Freedoms

The ruling reinforced several key principles:

  • A film that has been cleared by the CBFC is legally entitled to be shown in theatres.
  • Public order must be maintained, and threats of violence must not be rewarded with compliance.
  • Disagreements over language, culture, or art should be addressed through peaceful dialogue, not intimidation.

The Court also clarified that the release of a film does not compel anyone to watch it—it simply grants audiences the right to choose.


Next Steps and Legal Proceedings

As a result of the Supreme Court’s directive, Thug Life, which was released nationally on June 5, must now be allowed to screen in Karnataka. The Karnataka government has until June 19 to present its side, after which the matter will be taken up again.

This decision is likely a relief for Kamal Haasan and director Mani Ratnam, as it ensures that their film will not be unfairly blocked due to political or social tensions.


Significance Beyond a Single Film

This judgment carries broader implications beyond the immediate case. It sends a clear message that:

  1. Certified creative work cannot be obstructed by public threats.
  2. State authorities must resist unlawful pressure from fringe groups.
  3. Judicial institutions are obligated to defend artistic freedom and the rule of law.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s order allowing the screening of Thug Life in Karnataka underscores a crucial principle in a democratic society: freedom of expression cannot be sacrificed to mob pressure. By holding firm against unlawful censorship, the Court has reaffirmed its commitment to upholding constitutional rights and protecting the creative liberties of artists and filmmakers across India.