‘Not High Court’s Role to Demand Apology’: Supreme Court Slams ‘Thug Life’ Ban
The Supreme Court on Tuesday came down heavily on the ‘de-facto ban’ of Kamal Haasan’s Tamil film ‘Thug Life’ in Karnataka, stating unequivocally that “groups of hooligans” cannot be allowed to dictate what is screened in theatres. In a sharp rebuke, the court also criticized the Karnataka High Court for suggesting that an apology from the actor could resolve the issue.
A bench of Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Manmohan made the strong observations while hearing a plea from the film’s producer, who alleged that threats of violence had prevented the movie’s release despite it having a valid certificate from the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC).
“If someone has made a statement, you counter it with another statement. You cannot threaten to burn down theatres,” the bench remarked, emphasizing that the rule of law cannot be held hostage to mob threats.
The Supreme Court transferred the case from the Karnataka High Court to itself and has directed the state government to file its reply by Wednesday. Questioning the High Court’s role in the matter, the bench said, “There is something wrong with the system when one person makes a statement and everyone gets involved. Why should the High Court say ‘express an apology’? That is not its role.”
The controversy erupted after Kamal Haasan allegedly remarked at a promotional event that the “Kannada language was born out of Tamil.” The statement triggered a massive backlash from pro-Kannada groups, leading to threats of arson against theatres and an unofficial ban by the Karnataka Film Chamber of Commerce (KFCC).
The Supreme Court firmly reiterated the legal position on film certification. “Once a film is cleared by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC), it must be allowed to be released. People can choose not to watch it. But we cannot allow threats and intimidation to decide if a film gets released,” the court asserted.
It added that if people in Karnataka disagreed with Haasan’s statement, they were free to counter it with their own statements, but not with violence.
Reaffirming its constitutional duty, the bench stated, “We are the custodians of the rule of law. That is what the Supreme Court is for.” The matter is scheduled to be heard again on Thursday.
