SC Upholds Free Speech: “Every CBFC-Approved Film Must Be Released” – Karnataka Under Scrutiny Over 'Thug Life' Ban
Supreme Court Asserts CBFC Authority Over Fringe Threats
In a significant oral observation, the Supreme Court of India on Tuesday underscored the constitutional importance of free expression and warned against extra-judicial censorship. The Court emphasized that any film duly certified by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) must be permitted to be released, regardless of opposition from vigilante groups or political sentiments.
This came during the hearing of a petition concerning the Kamal Haasan-starrer ‘Thug Life’, which faces alleged threats and an extra-judicial ban in Karnataka following controversial remarks attributed to the actor.
Bench Sends Clear Message: Mob Rule Cannot Undermine the Law
A bench comprising Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Manmohan stated unambiguously that “mobs and vigilantes cannot dictate what gets released in theatres.” The Court further remarked that it is up to individuals to choose whether they want to watch a movie—but once a film has secured CBFC clearance, its release cannot be blocked by unlawful threats or political pressure.
The matter, initially before the Karnataka High Court, has now been transferred to the Supreme Court, underscoring its urgency and national importance.
Petition Filed by Mahesh Reddy Over Threats in Karnataka
The petition was filed by Mahesh Reddy, who flagged serious concerns about fringe groups in Karnataka issuing violent threats over the film's release. The petition argued that this has led to a breakdown in law and order and called for judicial intervention to protect cinema halls and ensure screening of the film.
The threats reportedly stem from an alleged statement by actor Kamal Haasan claiming that "Kannada was born out of Tamil," which triggered backlash from linguistic groups in Karnataka.
State’s Response Under Scanner
Despite having issued notice to the Karnataka government and the State Police on June 13, the Court was informed on Tuesday that no substantial action had been taken to curb the threats or protect freedom of expression.
The counsel for the petitioner also highlighted that this de facto ban violates Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, which protects the freedom of speech and expression—not just for filmmakers, but also for audiences who wish to engage with artistic works.
The Karnataka government was directed to submit its formal response by the next hearing date, Thursday, with the Court stating that such issues must not be allowed to fester.
Questioning Political Double Standards
The incident also casts a spotlight on alleged political contradictions, particularly around the Congress party, which governs Karnataka. While the party campaigned extensively during the Lok Sabha elections on a platform to ‘Save the Constitution’ and protect free speech, critics now accuse it of failing to uphold those same constitutional values at the state level.
The inaction of the Karnataka government in the face of mob threats raises questions over selective enforcement of constitutional principles and political convenience overriding fundamental freedoms.
Conclusion: Upholding Artistic Freedom Is Non-Negotiable
The Supreme Court’s intervention sends a strong message: Artistic freedom cannot be hostage to fringe sentiments or political calculations. As India continues to grapple with questions around free speech, identity politics, and censorship, this case could set an important precedent for the future of cinematic expression and state accountability.
With the hearing scheduled for Thursday, all eyes will be on how the Karnataka government responds—and whether India’s constitutional promise of freedom of expression will be upheld, not just in words, but through action.
Comments
Post a Comment