New Delhi | June 17, 2025
The Supreme Court of India took strong exception to the effective obstruction of the film Thug Life in Karnataka, warning the state government against giving in to public pressure or mob threats. The apex court reminded the state that once a movie is cleared by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC), it is the government’s duty to ensure its peaceful release across all regions.
A bench comprising Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and S.C. Sharma expressed concern over the rising trend of unofficial bans being enforced through threats and protests, rather than legal procedures.
“We cannot allow the rule of mobs to take over the rule of law. The state must uphold constitutional freedoms and ensure lawful screening,” the Court remarked during the hearing.
Thug Life Controversy: What Triggered the Uproar?
The film, which features Kamal Haasan in a prominent role, sparked controversy after a comment he made in an earlier event was construed as offensive by some Kannada groups. While the film had received CBFC certification for national release, several theatre owners in Karnataka refrained from screening it due to threats of violence and protests.
Despite not being legally banned, the movie remained largely inaccessible to audiences in the state.
Supreme Court’s Key Observations
• Freedom of Artistic Expression Is Non-Negotiable: The Court emphasized that certification by the CBFC is legally binding, and any attempt to stop a film post-certification amounts to censorship by intimidation.
• State Has A Duty to Maintain Order: The bench noted that if theatre owners are being threatened or pressured, the state must act to protect both the exhibitors and the viewers’ rights.
• No Apology Expected from Artist: The Court also questioned the Karnataka High Court’s earlier remarks suggesting Kamal Haasan should apologize for his statements, calling it an unwarranted judicial interference into free speech.
The Court has asked the Karnataka government to respond with details of the preventive and protective measures it has taken to ensure the film’s release. The matter will be heard again this week.
If the state fails to provide a satisfactory explanation, the Supreme Court may consider issuing direct orders to facilitate screenings under police protection.
