“There’s No End To Hurt Sentiments, Where Are We Heading As a Society?”: Supreme Court Closes Plea Seeking Directions To Ensure Release of Tamil Film 'Thug Life'

The Supreme Court today closed a public interest litigation filed seeking directions to ensure that the Tamil film Thug Life, certified by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC), is permitted to be screened in theatres across Karnataka. The petition alleged that, despite certification, the film was not being allowed to be released due to threats and pressure from certain groups.

A Bench of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Manmohan remarked, “There’s no end to hurt sentiments. If a stand-up comedian says something, people claim offence and resort to vandalism. Where are we heading as a society?”

Advocate on Record A. Velan appeared for the Petitioner, Senior Advocate Satish Parasaran appeared for the producer of the film, and Senior Advocate Anand Sanjay M. Nuli represented the intervenors, who were critical of the remarks made by the actor and producer of the film, Kamal Haasan, allegedly against the Kannada language.

Counsel for the State of Karnataka informed the Court that a counter-affidavit had been filed. Advocate A. Velan, appearing for the petitioner, submitted, “There’s no action contemplated.” Justice Manmohan responded, “But they’ve said if the movie is released, the State will act…” Velan replied, “It’s like a king’s privilege, no action against them.”

The State's counsel submitted that the producer had approached both the High Court and the Supreme Court, and the affidavit promises to give the required security. Justice Bhuyan asked, “Can we close the matter?” to which the Senior Advocate for the producer replied in the affirmative.

Velan urged the Court to lay down guidelines, stating, “My grievance is that I’m pressing for guidelines, as we’re increasingly facing similar circumstances.” He referred to hate speech and pointed out that in a similar case, the Court had found that a film lost its market value because it was not released and called it a gross violation, imposing punitive costs of ₹20 lakhs. The State counsel responded that in those cases, a formal ban had been imposed.

Justice Bhuyan observed, “It’s also the State’s duty to act against mobs. If there’s a threat of burning down cinemas, which producer will dare to release a film? There’s a lurking fear.” The State assured the Court, “If anyone indulges in such acts, we will take action. The Film Chamber allegedly asked for an apology, and the producer gave an undertaking in court not to release the film. But if they now choose to release it, we will provide protection, we won’t shy away.”

The Advocate for the Karnataka Film Chamber of Commerce (KFCC) stated, “We never wrote any letter asking for an apology.”

Justice Bhuyan asked, “Should a movie be stopped because of this? Should stand-up comedy or poetry recitals be banned too?”

The Advocate for KFCC submitted that a mob entered their office and that they acted under threat.

Justice Bhuyan questioned, “You gave in under pressure. Did you even approach the police?” and continued, “You're hiding behind these groups. There's no end to hurt sentiments. If a stand-up comedian says something, people claim offence and resort to vandalism. Where are we heading as a society?”

The Counsel responded, “I’m not supporting fringe elements, but these controversies often lack genuine hurt, it's more like a marketing strategy.”

Justice Bhuyan replied, “Exactly, and you fell into that trap, it is a marketing strategy.”

Counsel for the intervenor submitted that there had been past disputes between Tamil Nadu and Karnataka over issues like Kaveri.

Justice Bhuyan asked, “So tell us clearly, do you support the release of the film or the burning down of theatres?” The response was, “The movie can be screened… if the actor apologizes.”

Justice Bhuyan asked, “Tomorrow, if someone writes something, will there be demands for an apology again?”

The Counsel for the intervenor added, “There's no scientific basis to such statements, it's just a publicity gimmick.”

Justice Manmohan observed, “Even if it’s a gimmick, file a defamation case. But you can’t take the law into your own hands.” He added, “You must clearly state that you won’t oppose the film’s release through violence.”

Senior Advocate Anand Sanjay M. Nuli for the intervenor responded, “We don’t support violence, not for a moment. They have freedom of expression.”

Justice Manmohan said, “Then just say it, you will not take the law into your own hands.”

The Senior Advocate for the producer submitted, “My Lords, please consider who made the statement (against the movie); it was a Minister.”

Justice Manmohan remarked, “We can only hope better sense prevails.”

Velan urged the Court to impose costs to deter such situations in the future. Counsel for the producer submitted that they had already suffered a loss of ₹30 crores.

The Court ordered, “This petition under Article 32 was filed as a PIL seeking multiple reliefs. However, in light of the State's clear stand, we do not find it necessary to delve into rival contentions. Notably, on June 13, this Court had issued urgent notice. On June 17, the petition filed by the producer before the Karnataka High Court was transferred to this Court. A day’s time was granted for the State to file counter. The State of Karnataka, in its affidavit, specifically stated in Para 2 that no restriction has been imposed on the release of the CBFC-certified film and assured that full protection would be given if the producer decides to release it."

The Court further ordered, "Today, Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that in view of the State's position, the Petitioner does not wish to pursue the writ petition. However, he urged the Court to consider laying down guidelines and imposing costs in such cases...in view of stand taken by the State Government, they will not come in the way of screening of the movie. Mr.Nuli, for the intervenor, submits that the statement by lead actor of the film has hurt sentiments and therefore, they are agitated. However, on pointed query by Court, he submits that the organisation will never take the law in its hands and will respect the freedom of speech. However, he submits such statements should not be made that hurts the sentiments of the people."

The Court also said in the order, "Now, the State has come up with the affidavit, paving the way for the release of the movie, and Respondent No. 5 showing collaboration, we find that it would be in the interest of justice to bring closure to the matter. We don't find it appropriate to lay guidelines or impose cost. However, we direct Karnataka, if in situation any individual or group prevents the release of the movie or resorts to coercion or violence, the State shall act promptly by taking action under criminal and civil law, including for damages.”