'Thug Life': Supreme Court Criticises Ban on Kamal Haasan Film in Karnataka; Warns Against Mob Rule

In a strong rebuke to vigilante censorship, the Supreme Court directed the Karnataka government to ensure safe screenings of Kamal Haasan’s 'Thug Life' affirming that rule of law—not mob pressure—must govern artistic freedom.

Team THR India
By Team THR India
LAST UPDATED: JUN 18, 2025, 15:44 IST|5 min read
Kamal Haasan
Kamal Haasan

The Supreme Court on Tuesday came down firmly in favour of artistic freedom, warning against mob interference in the release of films and instructing the Karnataka government to ensure the safe screening of Kamal Haasan’s Thug Life.

“We cannot have mobs and vigilante groups take over our streets. Rule of law must prevail,” said Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, who headed the Vacation Bench alongside Justice Manmohan. The bench was hearing a plea filed by Bengaluru resident M. Mahesh Reddy, represented by advocate Athenam Velan, seeking protection for CBFC-certified screenings of the film in Karnataka.

You may also like

The petition also called for legal action against individuals inciting violence and issuing threats against the film’s producers and theatres. It accused the Karnataka government of a “flagrant failure” to uphold law and order, alleging that the ban was enforced through intimidation rather than lawful means.

“The rule of law demands that any person must be allowed to release his film,” Justice Manmohan noted. “Filmmakers cannot suffer the bane or fear that cinemas would be burnt down. People may not come or watch the film... but the film must be shown.”

The court made it clear that the release of a film certified by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) could not be obstructed by violence, calling such interference a direct attack on the freedom of expression.

Justice Bhuyan drew parallels with the case of Me Nathuram Godse Boltoy, a controversial Marathi play banned in the 1990s, only for the Bombay High Court to later overturn the ban to uphold divergent views in a democracy.

You may also like

The judges also referred to legal protection extended to Rajya Sabha MP Imran Pratapgarhi, who faced a criminal case for posting a poem online. “Let there be a debate,” said Justice Manmohan. “There would be something wrong in a system in which one person makes a statement and everybody believes it as gospel truth.”

Advocate Velan criticised the Karnataka High Court for having “prioritised appeasement,” alleging that it had skirted its constitutional duty by focusing on whether Haasan should apologise to fringe groups rather than ensuring protection for the film.

The court affirmed its role as a guardian of the Constitution, warning that it would intervene robustly to prevent extra-judicial censorship and uphold artistic freedoms.

Latest News