SC slams Thug Life ban, raps Karnataka High Court saying it has no role to demand apology

The Supreme Court on Tuesday strongly criticised Karnataka’s ban on the Kamal Haasan-starrer Thug Life and said that mobs cannot dictate film screenings. It also transferred the case to itself and slammed the Karnataka High Court over its suggestion that the actor apologise to resolve the issue.

The apex court also issued a notice in the case of the ban on the release of Kamal Haasan’s Tamil film Thug Life in Karnataka, while criticising groups that threatened to ban the film’s release over some controversial remarks made by the actor.

‘Groups of hooligans cannot decide what gets screened in theatres’

The court said that ‘groups of hooligans’ cannot be allowed to decide what gets screened in theatres, and the rule of law cannot be held hostage to mob threats, and warned.

A bench of Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Manmohan strongly criticised groups that threatened to burn down theatres over Haasan’s remarks claiming “Kannada was born from Tamil.”

“If someone has made a statement, you counter it with another statement. You cannot threaten to burn down theatres,” the bench remarked.

It added that the people of Karnataka are free to disagree with Haasan, but fundamental rights must be protected.

Why threaten to burn down cinemas?

“If enlightened people of Karnataka and Bengaluru believe his statement was wrong, they can issue a statement saying so. Why threaten to burn down cinemas?”

The top court transferred the plea filed by the film’s producer from the Karnataka High Court to itself and asked the state government to file its reply. It also questioned the role of the High Court, especially over suggestions that the actor apologise to resolve the issue.

The top court remarked on the Karnataka High Court’s stance of asking for an apology from Haasan over his comment and stated that it had no business doing so.

“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 court said.

‘Once a film is cleared by CBFC, it must be released’

It emphasised that 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 added.

The court also quoted past judgments, including the Bombay High Court verdict in the Mi Nathuram Boltoy play case, and the Imran Pratapgarhi ruling, to support the argument that differing views must be allowed in a democracy.

Reiterating its role, the court said, “We are the custodians of the rule of law. That is what the Supreme Court is for.”

The bench said that the rule of law demands that any film that has a CBFC certificate must be released, and the state has to ensure its screening.

The court has asked the Karnataka government to file its counter-affidavit by Wednesday, and posted the matter for further hearing on Thursday.