Today, On 19th June, The Supreme Court strongly criticised the Karnataka government and Film Chamber for threatening to block Kamal Haasan’s film Thug Life, firmly stating, “You cannot make such threats” while upholding the right to creative freedom.
Bengaluru: The Supreme Court of India criticized the Karnataka government and the State Film Chamber on Thursday for failing to take action against individuals who threatened violence regarding the release of the film Thug Life.
While noting the state’s affidavit, which affirmed that there were no restrictions on the film’s release and that full security would be provided if the producers decided to proceed, the court questioned why no measures had been taken against those making threats.
The bench comprising Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Manmohan was hearing the case.
The Supreme Court directed the Karnataka government to take strict action against anyone trying to block the screening of Kamal Haasan’s film Thug Life in the state.
The controversy began after Kamal Haasan reportedly made remarks suggesting that the Kannada language originated from Tamil. His statement caused protests and public outrage in Karnataka. Due to this opposition, local distributors expressed fear in screening the movie.
The bench remarked to the Film Chamber,
“If the mob is attacking you, then you should approach the police. You are a powerful body,”
Which had previously requested an apology from the producers after around 500 individuals stormed its office.
The Chamber later stated that it acted under pressure and did not intend to hinder the film’s release.
During the hearings of petitions from the producer and a third party seeking guidelines on hate speech and threats of violence, the bench asserted that freedom of expression cannot be limited by claims of hurt sentiments.
Highlighting that in a diverse nation like India, mobs should not be allowed to dictate what can or cannot be released, the court questioned,
“Should stand-up comics be stopped? Should poets not recite poems?”
Justice Bhuyan then responded ,
“This pattern cannot continue. We can’t permit the suppression of creative expression – whether films, comedy, or…”
The petitioner contended that the state’s affidavit provided “king-like immunity” to individuals making threats of arson, noting that it did not mention any plans to initiate prosecution.
He referred to previous Supreme Court rulings that held states responsible for not protecting filmmakers and theater owners.
The counsel for the Sahitya Parishad, which intervened in the case, expressed that the organization believed the actor’s remarks had offended public sentiment but assured the court that it would never condone violence.
The court acknowledged this assurance and urged both the state government and the Parishad to adhere to their statements.
When the petitioner sought compensation for the filmmaker, claiming losses of up to Rs.30 crore, the bench declined, stating,
“You think Rs.20 or Rs.30 lakh will make a difference to him?”
It concluded that issuing new guidelines or engaging in conflicting arguments would be inappropriate, given the producer’s satisfaction with the government’s affidavit.
The Karnataka government asserted that the conflict was between the producer and the Film Chamber, noting that the producer had voluntarily chosen to delay the release. The court emphasized that the state was now obligated to adhere to its affidavit and urged all parties to exercise restraint.
The bench stated,
“This is a diverse country. If sentiments are constantly cited, nothing will ever be released. The state must act proactively against such threats. You cannot take law into your own hands,”
Finally, Justice Bhuyan ordered,
“However, we direct Karnataka to act swiftly against any attempts to forcibly disrupt screenings and bind all parties respondents and intervenorsto their undertakings made today. The proceedings are thus closed, ensuring the film’s release without prejudice to…”
He concluded with a remark for everyone to remember,
“We should check our emotions. Otherwise we will be engrossed by them. There is a difference between real life and reel life.”
Case Title: Raajkamal Films International v. State of Karnataka