It is really most refreshing, most reassuring and most reinvigorating to note that while taking the right step in the right direction at the right time, the Supreme Court on June 19, 2025 closed a PIL in M Mahesh Reddy v. State of Karnataka & Ors. (Writ Petition (Civil) No(s). 575/2025) challenging the unofficial ban on the screening of Tamil feature film ‘Thug Life’ in Karnataka taking into account the statement that was made by the Karnataka State Government that it has not imposed any ban on the film and that it will provide full protection and security for the screening of the film if the producers decide to release it in the State. It must be certainly mentioned here that a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was filed by Bengaluru resident M Mahesh Reddy seeking directions to allow the screening of the film. It must be disclosed here that the film was released all over the nation on June 5 but most unfortunately could not hit theatres in Karnataka following threats from groups including the Karnataka Rakshana Vedike.

It must be mentioned here that the unseemly controversy came out in the fore after several pro-Kannada organizations had objected to the release of film ‘Thug Life’ in Karnataka by citing Kamal Haasam’s earlier comment at a music launch last month in May which had generated a lot of furore and hullabaloo that The Kannada language originated from Tamil. It must be also revealed here that the comment had provoked widespread protests and demonstrations to the extent that Karnataka Film Chamber of Commerce (KFCC) and language-based organisations like the Kannada Sahitya Parishattu condemning it most strongly and also demanding an apology. While seeking to close the curtains on the unseemly controversy, Kamal Haasan later went to the extent of even clarifying very clearly that he did not ever intend to offend anyone and also simultaneously expressed his utmost respect for the Kannada language which definitely was more than enough for matters to be set to rest right there itself!

Ironically enough, what we witnessed on ground was that the screening of the film was deferred by the producers amid a charged atmosphere with fear of violence breaking out on a large scale on the screening of the film. What was even most astonishing to note was that on June 3, 2025 hearing even the Karnataka High Court insisted that Kamal Haasan must apologise! Finally, what came as a sigh of relief was that on June 17, the Apex Court transferred the relation petition that had been filed by the film’s producers in the Karnataka High Court to itself!

It would be vital to note that the top court while transferring the petition pending before the Karnataka High Court to itself remarked most emphatically that:
Rule of law demands that any person should be allowed to release this film. The person may come, may not watch the film… We are not passing an order that please come and watch the film. But the film must be released. We thus see that the Supreme Court while standing firmly in resounding defence of artistic and creative freedoms that cannot be ever compromised asserted that movies, stand-up comedy and poetry cannot be curtailed merely because some groups claim their sentiments are hurt, as it directed the Karnataka State Government to protect the screening of ‘Thug Life’ which is a Tamil film starring eminent actor Kamal Haasan in the State. Absolutely right!

It is also worth noting that while clearly referring to the broader Constitutional principles involved, Hon’ble Mr Justice Manmohan of the Apex Court had most categorically observed without mincing any words whatsoever setting the record straight that:
See, it’s concerning rule of law. It’s concerning a fundamental right. The court is intervening directly. That is what the Supreme Court is meant for. To be a custodian of the rule of law, as well as a fundamental right. That’s not just a video or a film. It’s much bigger than this.

It also cannot be lost sight of that the Bench of Apex Court comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Hon’ble Mr Justice Manmohan who were hearing this most crucial PIL made it indubitably clear underscoring that the duty of the State goes beyond mere neutrality and it must take to task those who try to muzzle creative expressions through threats and violence. It was also pointed out very elegantly, eloquently and effectively by the top court that:
This litany of hurt sentiments – there will be no end to it. And because someone says their sentiments are hurt, should movies be stopped, stand-up comedy be stopped, and poems not recited? We cannot allow this. Moreover, let us not forget that we are living in the country that is the biggest democratic country in the world! We need to have some tolerance for even those with whom we differ most diametrically in thoughts and opinions and have no unfettered right to muzzle their voice just because they don’t concur with our views!

Most fundamentally, while striking the right chord, the Apex Court Bench also very rightly underscored that fundamental rights cannot be held hostage by mobs adding sagaciously that:
Imposing bans will take us nowhere…A stand-up comedian says something, someone is hurt, and cases are registered. Here, mobs take over and stop the screening of a movie. We should be able to control our sentiments and not be subsumed by it. Absolutely right! Of course, there is no valid reason to differ in any manner with what the Apex Court has held so conclusively in this leading case!

It would be instructive to note that Hon’ble Mr Justice Ujjal Bhuyan minced absolutely just no words to observe unequivocally that:
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. In response, the State of Karnataka assured the top court stating that:
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 that:
We never wrote any letter asking for an apology.

As it turned out, Hon’ble Mr Justice Ujjal Bhuyan then quipped asking forthrightly that:
Should a movie be stopped because of this? Should stand-up comedy or poetry recitals be banned too? We see here that the advocate for the KFCC then submitted meekly stating that a mob entered their office and that they acted under threat. To this, Hon’ble Mr Justice Ujjal Bhuyan quipped not appearing much convinced that:
You gave in under pressure. Did you even approach the police? 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 clarifying that:
I’m not supporting fringe elements, but these controversies often lack genuine hurt, it’s more like a marketing strategy. Hon’ble Mr Justice Bhuyan replied saying that:
Exactly, and you fell into that trap, it is a marketing strategy. Counsel for the producer of film submitted that they had already suffered loss of Rs 30 crores.

By all accounts, the top court very rightly directed the State of Karnataka holding that:
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 any 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.

It may be recalled that about three months ago, in the Imran Pratapgarhi case also, the Apex Court had forcefully underscored this same line of reasoning holding most forcefully that:
Even if a large number of persons dislike the views expressed by another, the right of the person to express the views must be respected and protected. This is exactly what democracy is all about. No denying or disputing it!

In summary, it thus definitely merits no reiteration that all the High Courts and so also all the Trial Courts must definitely pay heed without fail to what the Apex Court has held so very convincingly in this leading case and always adhere most rigorously to the top court’s views on free speech which are most pragmatic, progressive and pertinent that needs to be always most strictly implemented! If the Trial Courts and High Courts take strict action against such threat calls, it is the time and money of the film producers that will be saved from being wasted unnecessarily which courts must always definitely keep in mind and act accordingly!

It is undoubtedly the most bounden duty of the Karnataka State Government to take all safety measures to ensure that the screening of the film takes place most peacefully and so also take the most strictest action against those who do anything to hinder the peaceful screening of the film, no matter how many they may be in number or how high post they may hold because in a democratic country like India, it is doubtless that the paramount place has always to be given to the time-tested dictum that:
Be you ever so high, the law stands above you and so also that:
No one can ever escape the long arms of the law on breaking the law. This alone will most strictly ensure that the free speech as enshrined in Article 19 of the Constitution is implemented on ground and no one who breaks the law can ever get away on the lame pretext of just being a part of frenzy mob!

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col (Retd) BPS Sirohi, A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera, Meerut - 250001, Uttar Pradesh