No fetters: On Thug Life, 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.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
2 hours ago
- Time of India
Speak freely
Why all courts must protect your right to speak your mind In India, the Constitution says you have the right to speak freely – as long as you don't break certain fair rules (like spreading hate or lies). But this right only really works if all courts across the country protect it. Recently, the Supreme Court (SC) – the top court in India – stood up strongly for free speech. In the case of a film called Thug Life by Kamal Haasan, someone said their feelings were hurt and wanted the film blocked in Karnataka. But the SC said no – just because someone is offended doesn't mean another person should lose their right to express themselves. If hurt feelings were enough, then free speech would always be in danger. This isn't the first time. Just a few months ago, in a case about poet Imran Pratapgarhi, the SC said that even if lots of people dislike your opinion, you still have the right to share it. But not all courts agree. Recently, the Calcutta High Court told a young person, 'You can't hurt others just because you have free speech.' And the Karnataka High Court told Haasan something similar. Lower courts also sometimes say things that go against what the SC has already made very clear. This creates confusion and makes people afraid to speak their minds, because they don't know if a local court might punish them, even if the SC would support them. In a strong democracy, free speech matters. And if it's a right promised by the Constitution, every court – not just the top one – needs to protect it. Facebook Twitter Linkedin Email Disclaimer Views expressed above are the author's own.
Time of India
2 hours ago
- Time of India
Last word
HCs and trial courts must follow SC's line on free speech The Constitution is clear – you have the right to freedom of speech and expression, subject to reasonable restrictions. But like an Ashokan edict carved in stone, the Constitution's letter is only as good as the spirit of the institutions tasked with upholding it. In the Thug Life case, SC has once again struck a blow for free speech. While clearing the Kamal Haasan film's release in Karnataka, it has made it abundantly clear that one person's 'hurt sentiments' are not a reasonable ground for curbing another's right to expression: 'In India…there will never be an end to the hurt sentiment phenomenon. But for that, right to free speech cannot be jeopardised…' Three months ago, in the Imran Pratapgarhi case, SC had forcefully made the same point: 'Even if a large number of persons dislike the views expressed by another, the right of the person to express the views must be respected and protected.' As the chief arbiter of the land, SC could not have made itself clearer in March any more than it can now. There's no way its word can be misunderstood or misinterpreted. Yet, Calcutta HC told a 22-year-old early this month: 'Look, we have freedom of speech but that doesn't mean you will go on to hurt others.' Then, Karnataka HC told Haasan: 'You or any citizen have no right to hurt sentiments of the masses…' And lower courts' views on free speech are generally even more stifling. This divergence of opinion within the judiciary has a chilling effect on free speech because there's only one SC above hundreds of HCs and subordinate courts. If free speech is a pillar of democracy, and a tenet of the Constitution, it shouldn't have to run the gauntlet with the hope of eventual salvation in the apex court. Facebook Twitter Linkedin Email This piece appeared as an editorial opinion in the print edition of The Times of India.
Indian Express
3 hours ago
- Indian Express
Not must for students to learn Hindi under NEP: RSS education wing
Amid row over languages to be studied under the National Education Policy (NEP), the RSS's education wing — Vidya Bharati — has made its stand clear that it is not necessary for everyone to study Hindi. Vidya Bharati's national president Ravindra Kanhare on Friday said: 'Vidya Bharti is of the opinion that education should be in mother tongue. This is something that has been said in the 1968 policy (on education) and has been proposed in the NEP as well. No language is being foisted upon any state. It has been said that children should read their language, one national language and any foreign language. If someone is from Tamil Nadu, they can learn Tamil or one from Kerala can learn Malayalam. It is not necessary for them to learn Hindi. The NEP draft had been sent to all states.' Kanhare was speaking at Vidya Bharati's annual press conference at Constitution Club. On the issue of rising school fees in private schools in metropolitan cities, he said 'if parents create pressure, fees can be redetermined'. He also said that parents must judge whether their children are getting quality education to justify the fees they pay. 'To determine the school fees is the job of state governments. In states there is generally a system where if the fees are to be increased, it would be done through a committee under the district magistrate. If the fees are to be increased by more, a state-level committee looks into it. Parents must see whether the schools are providing the kind of quality education that such fees must afford. If the parents create pressure, the fees can be redetermined,' Kanhare said. The statement comes in the backdrop of the growing concern over arbitrary hike in fees by private schools in metropolitan cities. The Delhi Public School in the Capital's Dwarka has been chided by the High Court as having become a 'money making machine' which treats students like 'chattel'. Answering a question on NCERT removing the mention of the Babri mosque from Class 12 textbooks, Kanhare said, 'To bring changes in the curriculum is NCERT's job. We must stick to historical facts in books. We have seen in all these years that misleading information has been provided in some books. If they have been removed now then there is nothing wrong with that.' Talking about Vidya Bharti's success stories in the past one year, Kanhare said while over 93% of students of its schools succeeded in Class 12th with more than 2,500 students scoring above 90%, as many as 27 of its alumni cleared the UPSC this year.
