Reaffirming the importance of freedom of speech and expression in a democratic society, the Supreme Court of India on Tuesday directed the Karnataka Government to uphold the rule of law and ensure the smooth release of Kamal Haasan’s upcoming film Thug Life.
This directive came amid reported threats and protests from certain groups angered by Haasan’s remarks linking the origin of Kannada to Tamil.
A two-judge bench comprising Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Manmohan observed that once a film has been granted certification by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC), it is legally entitled to be released, and it is the state’s responsibility to provide protection and maintain law and order.
“You may not agree with someone’s views, but that alone cannot be a ground to prevent the screening of a film. That’s what free speech and the rule of law demand,” Justice Bhuyan said, referencing a past Bombay High Court ruling that struck down the ban on the controversial Marathi play Me Nathuram Godse Boltoy.
The Supreme Court was hearing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking intervention to allow the screening of Thug Life in Karnataka. The petitioner alleged that despite receiving CBFC clearance, the film’s release was at risk due to pressure from fringe groups.
Supreme Court Criticises Karnataka High Court, Transfers Case
The bench expressed dissatisfaction with the Karnataka High Court’s approach, especially its suggestion that Kamal Haasan issue an apology before the matter could proceed. Justice Manmohan strongly disagreed with this, stating:
“The rule of law cannot be dependent on a person’s apology or lack thereof. If someone expresses a view, others can counter it with facts or opinions—but you cannot let mobs dictate the release of a film.”
The top court also formally transferred the ongoing writ petition from the Karnataka High Court to itself and directed the state of Karnataka to file a counter-affidavit within a day. The matter has now been listed for further hearing on Thursday.
“State Must Not Yield to Mob Pressure,” Says Court
Addressing the state counsel, Justice Manmohan emphasized that freedom of artistic expression must not be curtailed due to the fear of violence or public intimidation.
“You cannot hold the release of a certified film hostage to threats of gheraos or arson. The state must take a firm stand. The audience may choose not to watch the film, but its release must not be prevented.”
The Karnataka Government’s counsel submitted that the film’s producer had already approached the High Court and assured that he would resolve the issue through dialogue with the Film Chamber of Commerce, agreeing not to release the movie for now.
However, the Supreme Court brushed aside this assurance, underlining that legal rights cannot be suspended due to informal negotiations or mob pressure.
Justice Manmohan reiterated:
“It is not acceptable that someone has to strike a deal or wait for a resolution to exercise a right granted under law. If you have a CBFC certificate, the film must be allowed to screen. That’s the law in this country.”
Free Speech Is a Constitutional Right, Not Subject to Public Approval
The court also took a strong stand against the Karnataka High Court’s suggestion that Haasan should express regret for his statement on linguistic roots.
“Why should a High Court ask for an apology merely because someone voiced an opinion? This is not the role of a constitutional court,” said Justice Bhuyan.
He further referenced the Supreme Court’s ruling in a previous case involving MP Imran Pratapgarhi, where an FIR against him was quashed over a poem he had recited. That judgment, too, had upheld the principle that dissent and alternative viewpoints are an essential part of free expression.
Justice Bhuyan recalled:
“Even in the case of Me Nathuram Godse Boltoy, which contained critical commentary on Mahatma Gandhi, the High Court ruled in favor of artistic freedom. The same logic applies here.”
Supreme Court Emphasizes Its Constitutional Role
Concluding the hearing, the bench underlined the larger constitutional context of the issue, stating that this case was not just about the screening of a film, but about preserving the sanctity of the rule of law and fundamental rights.
Justice Manmohan summed it up:
“This court is not intervening just to ensure a film’s release—it is intervening because it concerns the core values of our Constitution. We are the custodians of fundamental rights and the rule of law, and we will not allow those principles to be undermined.”
The Supreme Court’s stance sets a clear precedent that lawfully certified films cannot be held hostage to public outrage or mob threats and reaffirms the judiciary’s role in safeguarding freedom of expression in India.