Edit | 'Thug Life' row: A court rap on mob rule

The Supreme Court has reiterated the importance of the right to freedom of speech and expression by strongly criticising the “extra-judicial ban” on the Tamil film Thug Life in Karnataka. The Court has made it clear, as it has done in the past, that any film that has received the clearance of the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) must be allowed a release and the government has the responsibility to ensure that it is screened without obstruction. The Kamal Haasan movie, directed by Mani Ratnam, was released across the country on June 5 but it was stalled in Karnataka following outrage over the actor’s remark that Kannada was born from Tamil. The Court has rightly described the “ban” as an infringement of the filmmakers’ constitutionally guaranteed right to freedom of speech and expression. It has directed the state government to uphold the “rule of law” and ensure that the film is released. The Court also criticised the Karnataka High Court for asking Haasan to apologise for his remark while hearing a petition filed by the film’s producers.

The issue is not about the merits of Haasan’s remarks about Kannada. While disagreeing with them and even condemning them, the government or any organisation or individual cannot object to the exhibition of the film. A ban would amount to denial not only of the right of people associated with the film to freedom of expression but of the right of people to view it. Banning a film cleared by the censoring body violates due procedure established by law.

The Court’s assertion that “we can’t allow mobs and vigilante groups to take over the streets” and that the rule of law must prevail is relevant to other cases. Recently, the producers of the Malayalam film L2: Empuraan were forced to make ‘voluntary modifications’ after its depiction of the 2002 communal violence in Gujarat became controversial, though the film had been cleared by the CBFC. In 2018, the Supreme Court cleared the release of the film Padmavat which was banned by four state governments after protests by caste groups. Films or other works of art should not be banned on the grounds that they express views unacceptable to some groups. Hurt public sentiment should be no reason for banning a work of art. In the case of Thug Life, the objection is not even against a view expressed in the film. The state government has done well to announce that it accepts the Court’s decision.