The Supreme Court of India’s firm stance on the controversy surrounding Kamal Haasan’s film Thug Life reflects a growing judicial intolerance for mob pressure and threats to creative expression. On Thursday, the court reprimanded the Karnataka government and the Karnataka Film Chamber of Commerce (KFCC) for failing to act decisively against those who issued threats of violence to obstruct the film’s release.
Key Observations from the Supreme Court:
-
The state government’s affidavit was accepted, which clarified:
-
No official restriction was imposed on the film’s release.
-
The state would offer full security to ensure the film could be screened safely.
-
-
However, the court questioned:
-
Why no criminal action was taken against those issuing open threats.
-
Why the film chamber pressured the producers to apologise after being stormed by a mob, instead of reporting the incident to police.
-
“If the mob is attacking you, then you should approach the police. You are a powerful body,” the court reminded the chamber.
Wider Implications for Free Speech:
The court offered a strong defence of freedom of expression, particularly in the creative and artistic space:
-
It warned that citing hurt sentiments as grounds for disruption could paralyse cultural and artistic production.
-
It questioned whether stand-up comics, poets, or artists should self-censor for fear of mob backlash.
“This is a diverse country. If sentiments are constantly cited, nothing will ever be released.”
On State Accountability:
-
The petitioner, representing the film’s producers, accused the Karnataka government of giving “king-like immunity” to those making threats and highlighted the absence of any prosecution or deterrent measures.
-
The court declined to order compensation, saying that demanding Rs 20-30 lakh for a film said to have lost Rs 30 crore was a symbolic gesture that wouldn't serve the larger issue.
Sahitya Parishad’s Involvement:
The Sahitya Parishad, which intervened claiming Thug Life hurt public sentiment, gave an undertaking that it did not condone violence—a statement the court formally recorded.
Developments Outside Court:
-
Bengaluru police have begun issuing notices to pro-Kannada groups, including KRV leader Praveen Shetty, restricting protests to Freedom Park and warning against unlawful agitation elsewhere in the city.
Final Stand by the Bench:
-
While refraining from issuing new guidelines or entering into a broader debate over content, the court made it clear that:
-
Mob threats cannot dictate film releases.
-
The state must act proactively, not reactively.
-
All stakeholders must act with restraint and responsibility.
-
Broader Significance:
This episode marks another chapter in India’s complex relationship with creative freedoms, federalism, and regional identity politics. The court’s strong remarks may not yield immediate punitive action, but they reinforce judicial backing for artistic freedom and signal to states that tolerance of mob intimidation will not go unexamined.
