SC notice to Karnataka over ‘extra-judicial ban’ on Kamal Haasan’s Thug Life

THe sublime margaret court on fri issued mark to the mysore government on a public interest litigation (PIL) challenging the “extra-judicial ban” on the screening of Tamil film Thug Life, starring Kamal Haasan and directed by Mani Ratnam. The petition, filed by Mahesh Reddy, contended that the film, despite an approval by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC), is being prevented from releasing in Karnataka due to threats and intimidation from extremist elements. A bench of justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Manmohan posted the matter for hearing on June 17. “Considering the urgency shown and the issue brought before this court, we issue notice to the respondent,” the bench said in its order. Appearing for the petitioner, counsel argued that the Karnataka government had “completely capitulated” to fringe elements issuing threats of arson and violence against cinema halls and linguistic minorities. The petition claimed that these threats, sparked by actor Kamal Haasan’s recent remarks that Kannada language, have led to an unofficial ban on the film, even though there has been no legal prohibition. Also Read: SC declines Karnataka theatre body’s plea for protection to screen ‘Thug Life’ The controversy began at the audio launch of Thug Life in Chennai on May 24, where Kamal Haasan reportedly said that “Kannada was born out of Tamil”. The comment drew sharp criticism in Karnataka, prompting the Karnataka Film Chamber of Commerce (KFCC) to bar the screening of the film and demand an apology from the actor. In a hearing before the Karnataka High Court, Haasan’s counsel informed the bench that the actor and his production house, Raajkamal Films International, had voluntarily deferred the release of the film in the state and were seeking dialogue with the KFCC. However, the High Court took a stern view of Haasan’s conduct. “You are not an ordinary man. You are a public figure. You create a circumstance, cause unrest, and now you want protection from the state machinery… This entire situation could have been solved with a simple apology,” Justice M Nagaprasanna remarked during the June 3 hearing on a plea seeking police protection for the film’s release. Senior advocate Dhyan Chinappa, representing Haasan, told the court on that day that the actor had expressed respect for the Kannada language and people, and had no intention to offend. “Apology is required only if there is malice. There is no malice here,” said Chinappa, adding that Haasan’s written statement conveyed goodwill and affection but could not be forced into a “prescribed format.” Describing Haasan’s statement as a “declaration of justification,” the high court also questioned the logic of seeking police protection without first taking steps to de-escalate tensions. “You want police protection but are unwilling to utter one word that could calm the unrest. You are sticking to your stand because of your ego,” observed the bench while adjourning the matter.