‘Thug Life’ release in Karnataka: Unending ‘litany of hurt sentiments’ cannot choke free speech in films, says Supreme Court

Actor Kamal Haasan during the`Thug Life’ movie press conference in Chennai. File
| Photo Credit: B. Jothi Ramalingam

The Supreme Court on Thursday (June 19, 2025) said an unending “litany of hurt sentiments” has become a cause of mob violence and threats against free speech and expression in films, literature and theatre in “undivided India”.

A Vacation Bench of Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Manmohan stressed that the State has a duty to ensure that “these mobs, groups who threaten people are taken to task”.

Free speech in films cannot live in lurking fear of violence, Justice Bhuyan said.

“This litany of hurt sentiments… there is no end to it. One or the other is hurt by whatever he sees or hears and then there is vandalism… Today it is a movie. Tomorrow somebody says a drama cannot be performed… Where are we heading?” Justice Bhuyan asked.

Justice Manmohan shared the exasperation on the Bench, saying “Should everything be stopped… movies, theatre, nobody can recite a poem?”

The Court closed the petitions filed against the “unofficial ban” on the screening of Kamal Haasan’s Tamil film ‘Thug Life’ in Karnataka following an assurance from the State to not impose any restriction on the release of the movie and to protect theatres screening the film.

“We are bound to protect the theatres,” the State counsel submitted.

The controversy was sparked by remarks made by Mr. Haasan about Kannada during the promotion of the film.

Appearing for the producers, senior advocate Sathish Parasaran said he was satisfied by the “fair statement” made by the State in the affidavit and would like to withdraw the case.

The State said it had not banned the movie. The producers themselves had decided to stall the release of the film following a stand-off with the Karnataka Film Chamber of Commerce in the backdrop of threats of mob violence.

One of the intervenors in the case affiliated to the Kannada language, represented by senior advocate Anand Sanjay Nuli, said the remarks made by Mr. Haasan ahead of the release of the film was a “publicity gimmick”. His remarks about Kannada, an emotive issue, had hurt sentiments.

“If the remark was a publicity gimmick, you fell into the trap?” Justice Bhuyan asked.

Justice Manmohan, also on the Bench, pitched in to ask the intervenor, “If you think it was a publicity gimmick, you file suitable proceedings… You cannot take law into your own hands… It is open to you to follow legal proceedings, not illegal”.

Another petitioner, M. Mahesh Reddy, represented by advocate Athenam Velan, sought guidelines from the Court against such unofficial restrictions on the release of movies.

Mr. Velan argued that such threats of violence and arson against theatres was “insidious” and posed a grave danger to free speech. He argued that the Supreme Court had issued protective guidelines on earlier occasions against hate speech, illegal demolitions, etc.

He also sought the imposition of costs.