In protecting ‘Thug Life', Supreme Court has protected more than entertainment
The cinema screen is no stranger to censorship in India — both lawful and unlawful. What has changed, however, is the form of silencing. Increasingly, it is not only formal state bans but the louder and more insidious forces of the mob — self-appointed vigilantes who threaten theatres, intimidate viewers, and police speech. The case of Thug Life, a Tamil feature film starring Kamal Haasan, is a troubling iteration of this pattern. The Supreme Court's recent intervention is not merely about one film, but a timely reminder of the constitutional bulwarks protecting free expression, and the enduring obligation of the state to uphold them.
The Supreme Court is presently seized of a petition filed by one Mahesh Reddy, who sought protection for the film's screening in Karnataka. Despite receiving certification from the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC), the film could not be released in the state. The reason: Pro-Kannada groups issued threats of violence in response to Haasan's recent public remark that Kannada was born out of Tamil. This provoked an intense backlash, and theatre owners, fearing arson and protest, pulled the film. Not only did the Karnataka High Court, when approached, fail to dismiss the 'extra-judicial ban' in the State, but shockingly nudged Haasan to apologise — a move that the Supreme Court found wholly inappropriate.
In transferring the matter from the High Court to itself, the bench of Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Manmohan, on June 17, made it abundantly clear that law and order cannot be hijacked by public sentiment. 'We can't allow mobs to take over,' the Court said. That statement, though directed at the Karnataka state government, reverberates far beyond this individual case.
This is not the first time that India's highest court has come to the rescue of filmmakers facing illegal censorship. Nor is this the first time that states, despite repeated judicial warnings, have failed in their constitutional duties. In Union of India v. K M Shankarappa (2001), the Court laid down the principle in no uncertain terms: Once an expert body such as the CBFC has considered the impact of a film on the public and cleared it, it is no excuse to cite law and order problems by the state governments. The job of the respective states is to protect expression, not shrink from it. 'The executive cannot sit in appeal or revision over [a certification],' the Court warned.
Yet, time and again, states have violated this boundary. In 2011, Aarakshan, a film starring Amitabh Bachchan addressing caste-based reservation, was banned in Uttar Pradesh and Andhra Pradesh despite CBFC clearance. The Supreme Court intervened, noting the state's duty was not to muzzle expression but to maintain law and order. In 2018, the Padmaavat controversy unfolded similarly, as several states rushed to ban the film due to community outrage. The Court stepped in again, reiterating that once a CBFC certificate is granted, the presumption is that all constitutional standards, including concerns around public order, have already been accounted for.
More recently, in 2023, the film The Kerala Story faced a blanket ban in West Bengal and a de facto ban in Tamil Nadu. The Supreme Court stayed the West Bengal order and directed Tamil Nadu to ensure security for screenings. It also recommended a disclaimer to address concerns regarding the film's factual accuracy, but refused to entertain demands for a ban. It was, as always, a call to protect speech, not please sentiment.
The common thread in all these cases, including Thug Life, is not the controversy over content, but the constitutional clarity on process. The law places faith in a regulatory framework. The CBFC, supported by a statutorily empowered Appellate Tribunal for appeals, is tasked with certifying films. When a film passes that test, no state government can step in to unilaterally nullify it, either directly or by failing to prevent others from doing so.
When the law protects cinema, it protects more than entertainment. It defends imagination, dissent, and truth-telling. In a nation as diverse and fraught as ours, films do what few institutions can: They provoke thought, evoke empathy, challenge dominant narratives, and give voice to those on the margins.
The Supreme Court has once again affirmed that freedom of speech is not an empty promise. It comes with the expectation that the state will act, not to judge or justify the expression, but to protect the space in which it can exist. As Justice Manmohan aptly put it, whether to watch a film or not is a personal choice. The right of filmmakers to express their views is constitutional. The right of the audience to disagree is democratic. But the right to suppress is neither constitutional nor democratic.
The writer is a Delhi-based Advocate and research fellow at Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hans India
an hour ago
- Hans India
Tamil Nadu: Heavy police deployment in Madurai ahead of Lord Murugan devotees conference
Chennai: Tight security arrangements have been put in place in Madurai, Tamil Nadu, as the temple town prepares to host the much-anticipated Lord Murugan Devotees' Conference, organised by Hindu Munnani. With thousands of devotees expected to attend, the Madurai City Police have deployed over 1,200 personnel across key locations to ensure the smooth conduct of the event. The conference is scheduled to take place on Sunday at Amma Thidal, near Pandi Kovil Ring Road, with the venue set against the scenic backdrop of Tiruparankundram hill -- one of the six sacred abodes of Lord Murugan. Organisers have recreated replicas of the 'Arupadaiveedu' (six holy abodes of Murugan) at the venue, offering devotees a chance to pay homage to all key shrines in one place. Senior police officials confirmed that surveillance has been intensified throughout the city, and traffic management plans have been put in place to prevent disruptions. 'We've strengthened monitoring through surveillance cameras and ensured that crowd flow, vehicular movement, and public order are maintained efficiently,' a police officer said. Representatives of the organising committee were earlier summoned for meetings and instructed to adhere strictly to the conditions laid down by the Madras High Court. Organisers, in turn, have assured the police of full compliance and said that arrangements for drinking water, medical aid, sanitation, and seating have been finalised. The event has taken on political significance as opposition parties accuse the Hindu Munnani and the BJP of attempting to use religion as a political mobilising tool. The controversy deepened following reports that Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath, initially scheduled to attend, had cancelled his visit. Despite this, prominent political and religious figures are still expected. Andhra Pradesh Deputy Chief Minister and actor-turned-politician Pawan Kalyan is among the invited dignitaries. The Lord Murugan Devotees' Conference is a large-scale religious congregation initiated by Hindu Munnani to celebrate the faith and devotion surrounding Lord Murugan, a revered deity in Tamil Hinduism known for his valour, wisdom, and divine grace. The event is seen not only as a spiritual gathering but also as a platform to affirm Tamil cultural identity and Hindu unity. The choice of Madurai -- a city steeped in Murugan lore and home to the sacred Tiruparankundram temple -- adds to the significance of the occasion. With strong religious and cultural overtones, the conference is expected to draw thousands of devotees from across Tamil Nadu and beyond.
The Hindu
an hour ago
- The Hindu
What is the PM Modi quote in ‘Sitaare Zameen Par'?
Aamir Khan's Sitaare Zameen Par arrived in cinemas on June 20, but not without a set of last-minute, government-mandated changes — chief among them, has been the inclusion of a quote by Prime Minister Narendra Modi in the opening credits. Cleared for release by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) on June 17, the film faced a delay in certification until producers complied with five specific edits. The most prominent directive was to feature the Prime Minister's message as part of the film's opening disclaimer. The quote reads: 'In 2047, when we celebrate the 100th anniversary of Independence, our divyang friends will be seen as an inspiration to the whole world. Today, we have to be determined towards achieving this goal. Let us all build a society where no dream or goal is impossible, only then we will be able to build a truly inclusive and developed India.' The terminology itself has sparked debate. The term 'divyang,' coined by Modi in 2015 to refer to persons with disabilities, has been widely criticised by disability rights groups, who have argued that it glosses over real struggles with euphemism and strips away all complexity. Despite sustained opposition and formal petitions to government bodies, the term remains in official use. Beyond the quote, the CBFC ordered several other changes. A visual and subtitle containing the word 'kamal' (lotus) — also the symbol of the ruling party — was removed. 'Business woman' was changed to 'business person,' and a 30-second disclaimer at the start was shortened to a 26-second voiceover. The word 'Michael Jackson' in subtitles was swapped with 'Lovebirds.' The revisions were recommended by a CBFC revising committee led by theatre director Waman Kendre, after the examining committee reviewed the initial cut. Neither CBFC chairperson Rajendra Singh nor Kendre commented on the rationale behind the directives. The unusual nature of these changes, especially the inclusion of a political quote, has drawn criticism. Critics argue that inserting political messaging into cinema, particularly under certification pressure, sets a worrying precedent for creative freedom. Sitaare Zameen Par is the official Hindi remake of the 2018 Spanish film Champions, and is presented as a spiritual successor to Aamir Khan's 2007 hit Taare Zameen Par. Directed by RS Prasanna, the film follows a basketball assistant coach (played by Khan) sentenced to community service, who finds himself coaching a team of neurodivergent basketball players adults. The film also stars Genelia Deshmukh.
Time of India
2 hours ago
- Time of India
Bombing Iran, Trump gambles on force over diplomacy
For nearly a half-century the United States has squabbled with Iran 's Islamic republic but the conflict has largely been left in the shadows, with US policymakers believing, often reluctantly, that diplomacy was preferable. With President Donald Trump's order of strikes on Iran's nuclear sites, the United States -- like Israel, which encouraged him -- has brought the conflict into the open, and the consequences may not be clear for some time to come. "We will only know if it succeeded if we can get through the next three to five years without the Iranian regime acquiring nuclear weapons, which they now have compelling reasons to want," said Kenneth Pollack, a former CIA analyst and supporter of the 2003 Iraq war who is now vice president for policy at the Middle East Institute. US intelligence had not concluded that Iran was building a nuclear bomb, with Tehran's sensitive atomic work largely seen as a means of leverage, and Iran can be presumed to have taken precautions in anticipation of strikes. Trita Parsi, an outspoken critic of military action, said Trump "has now made it more likely that Iran will be a nuclear weapons state in the next five to 10 years." Live Events "We should be careful not to confuse tactical success with strategic success," said Parsi, executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft. "The Iraq war was also successful in the first few weeks but President Bush's declaration of 'Mission Accomplished' did not age well," he said. Weak point for Iran Yet Trump's attack -- a week after Israel began a major military campaign -- came as the cleric-run state is at one of its weakest points since the 1979 Islamic revolution toppled the pro-Western shah. Since the October 7, 2023 attack on Israel by Hamas, which enjoys Iran's support, Israel -- besides obliterating much of Gaza -- has decimated Lebanon's Hezbollah, a militant group that would once reliably strike Israel as Tehran's proxy. Iran's main ally among Arab leaders, Syria's Bashar al-Assad, was also toppled in December. Supporters of Trump's strike argued that diplomacy was not working, with Iran standing firm on its right to enrich uranium. "Contrary to what some will say in the days to come, the US administration did not rush to war. In fact, it gave diplomacy a real chance," said Ted Deutch, a former Democratic congressman who now heads the American Jewish Committee. "The murderous Iranian regime refused to make a deal," he said. Top Senate Republican John Thune pointed to Tehran's threats to Israel and language against the United States and said that the state had "rejected all diplomatic pathways to peace." Abrupt halt to diplomacy Trump's attack comes almost exactly a decade after former president Barack Obama sealed a deal in which Iran drastically scaled back its nuclear work -- which Trump pulled out of in 2018 after coming into office for his first term. Most of Trump's Republican Party and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has long seen Iran as an existential threat, attacked Obama's deal because it allowed Tehran to enrich uranium at levels well beneath weapons grade and the key clauses had an end date. But Trump, billing himself a peacemaker, just a month ago said on a visit to Gulf Arab monarchies that he was hopeful for a new deal with Iran, and his administration was preparing new talks when Netanyahu attacked Iran. This prompted an abrupt U-turn from Trump. "Trump's decision to cut short his own efforts for diplomacy will also make it much harder to get a deal in the medium and long runs," said Jennifer Kavanagh, director of military analysis at Defense Priorities, which advocates restraint. "Iran now has no incentive to trust Trump's word or to believe that striking a compromise will advance Iran's interests." Iran's religious rulers also face opposition internally. Major protests erupted in 2022 after the death in custody of Mahsa Amini, who was detained for defying the regime's rules on covering hair. Karim Sadjadpour, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, wrote on social media that Trump's strikes could either entrench the Islamic Republic or hasten its downfall. "The US bombing of Iran's nuclear facilities is an unprecedented event that may prove to be transformational for Iran, the Middle East, US foreign policy , global non-proliferation and potentially even the global order," he said. "Its impact will be measured for decades to come."
