No fetters: On Thug Life, extra-judicial bans.
In Thug Life case, Court upholds certified films against extra-judicial bans.
In ensuring the screening of the film Thug Life — thespian Kamal Haasan plays the lead role — in Karnataka, the Supreme Court of India has unequivocally asserted a fundamental free speech principle that certified films cannot be stifled by protests or a recourse to “hurt sentiments”. Following Mr. Haasan’s comment in a pre-launch event, that Kannada was born from Tamil (it is factually inaccurate as both languages have been known to share a proto-Dravidian ancestor), the film has faced an extra-judicial ban in Karnataka; the Karnataka High Court had suggested that he apologise. The Supreme Court’s directions however repudiate this “moral” position taken by the High Court, bringing into focus the judiciary’s role as a guardian of due process. After the film was certified by the CBFC, there should be no fetters on its release, and, therefore, the extra-judicial ban violated the rule of law. The film certification framework, governed by the Cinematograph Act, 1952 and its rules, is designed to safeguard creativity, while maintaining a balance between constitutionally mandated free speech and reasonable restrictions. The CBFC, equipped to vet films with these legal standards, is solely tasked with doing so. Amorphous groups claiming “hurt sentiments” to intimidate a film’s release have no role in this. Giving in to such claims risks violating free speech rights and hurting the livelihoods of actors, artists, technicians and workers. The top court rightly characterised extra-judicial bans as a direct infringement on film-makers’ constitutionally guaranteed right to freedom of speech and expression.
By emphatically rejecting the extra-judicial ban, the Court has reiterated its positions that maintaining law and order in the face of divergent views is the state’s responsibility. It is vital to understand that certified and regulated freedom of speech, as assessed by the CBFC, is distinct from hate speech, which finds no constitutional protection and can be legally restricted. This crucial distinction underscores that legitimate artistic expression, once cleared by the designated authority, deserves state protection. Moving forward, the Court’s directions should pave the way for the state to provide institutional safeguards against unofficial bans overriding the CBFC’s certification and release. These could include holding theatre owners accountable for unwarranted cancellations of scheduled releases, policing guidelines that distinguish lawful dissent from illegal intimidation and also allowing for citizens to watch a certified film without fear.