Supreme Court defends creative freedom amid threats over Tamil film ‘Thug Life’

New Delhi: In a powerful affirmation of constitutional freedoms, the Supreme Court of India has directed the Karnataka government to ensure that the Tamil film Thug Life, starring Kamal Haasan, can be screened in the state without obstruction. This came during the hearing of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by Bengaluru-based petitioner M Mahesh Reddy, challenging an unofficial ban and mob threats that had prevented the film’s release.

The film, which opened across the country on June 5, failed to hit screens in Karnataka after threats from regional outfits, most notably the Karnataka Rakshana Vedike. The Supreme Court’s intervention came after a wave of controversy ignited by Haasan’s earlier statement at a music launch, claiming that “Kannada language originated from Tamil.” The backlash included street protests, threats of vandalism, and calls for an apology by linguistic groups such as the Kannada Sahitya Parishat and the Karnataka Film Chamber of Commerce (KFCC).

“This is about more than just a film”: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court bench comprising Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Manmohan took a firm stand during the hearing. After the Karnataka government submitted that it had not imposed any official ban and would provide “full protection and security” for screenings, the Court closed the PIL but delivered strong remarks on freedom of expression, mob censorship, and the state’s constitutional duty.

Justice Manmohan emphasised:

“It’s concerning rule of law and fundamental rights. That’s not just a video or film. It’s much bigger than this.”

The Court noted that creative content like films, stand-up comedy, and poetry cannot be silenced simply because someone’s sentiments are hurt, stating:

“We are not ordering anyone to watch the film. But it must be allowed to release. Otherwise, democracy falls prey to mob veto.”

Karnataka must act against mob threats, says SC

Highlighting the dangers of mob censorship, Justice Ujjal Bhuyan stated:

“If there’s a threat of burning down cinemas, which producer will dare to release a film? The lurking fear itself suppresses freedom. It is also the state’s duty to act against mobs.”

In response, the Karnataka government assured the Court of full protection and stated it would not shy away from taking action against any disruptive elements.

The Supreme Court directed:

“If any individual or group prevents the release of the movie or resorts to coercion or violence, the State shall act promptly under criminal and civil law, including claims for damages.”

Haasan’s clarification, but fear remains

Although Kamal Haasan later clarified his controversial comment and reiterated his respect for the Kannada language, the film’s producers chose to delay release due to safety concerns. Reports indicated that the KFCC acted under duress from protesters, but denied officially demanding an apology. The producers reported financial losses of over ₹30 crore, with the charged atmosphere creating uncertainty around the film’s commercial viability in Karnataka.

Court criticises selective outrage and double standards

Justice Bhuyan further questioned:

“Should stand-up comedy or poetry recitals also be banned if someone feels offended? Where are we heading as a society?”

The Court cited its earlier position in the Imran Pratapgarhi case, reiterating that freedom of speech must be protected even if a majority disagrees with the opinion expressed. The judges underscored that sentiment-based censorship was becoming a dangerous pattern, and no democratic society can allow mobs to dictate cultural expression.

Democracy demands tolerance and legal safeguards

The Court observed:

“We should be able to control our sentiments. Imposing bans will take us nowhere. It is the state’s responsibility to ensure that fundamental rights are not held hostage to threats.”

This judgment reaffirms India’s constitutional values enshrined under Article 19, which protects freedom of speech and expression. The Court emphasised that tolerance, not intimidation, is the bedrock of democracy.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court has sent a resounding message: India must not give in to the tyranny of hurt sentiments, especially when they are exploited to create political or cultural divisions. The judiciary’s role as a custodian of the Constitution remains crucial in preserving freedom of expression, especially in the face of rising intolerance and mob pressure.