Parties agree before SC to support safe release of ‘Thug Life’ in Karnataka

Today, a Partial Court Working Days Bench of Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Manmohan paved the way for the safe screening of the film ‘Thug Life’ in the state of Karnataka. The Bench recorded the statements of the state government to not stand in the way of the film’s release.

The Bench sought to find a peaceful solution to the controversy. In doing so, it sharply criticised the use of terms like “hurt sentiments” and “threat of mob violence” by lawyers defending fringe groups in the state. These groups had tried to block the release of a film in protest against actor Kamal Haasan’s remarks that “Kannada was born out of Tamil.” 

Refute claims with research

“There is no end to hurt sentiments, where are we heading?” Justice Bhuyan asked in the hearing today. When the counsel referred to a “lurking fear of violence” as a ground for the extra-judicial ban on the film, the Bench retorted: “Is it not the state’s responsibility to take the mobs to task?” 

The counsel for the Karnataka Film Chamber of Commerce (KFCC) defended its plea for an apology by Kamal Haasan for his ‘offensive’ remarks, citing widespread protests across the state. The KFCC also claimed that there was a threat of violence if the film was screened in the state, as Haasan had refused to apologise for his remarks.

The Bench, however, was unconvinced and questioned why a police complaint was not filed in such a case. They urged that the claims be refuted with proper research. Justice Manmohan added that if the Chamber believed Haasan’s comments were mere theatrics, it was free to pursue a defamation case against him. “But you can’t take the law into your own hands,” he cautioned.

The KFCC gave a clear undertaking that it would abide by the Court’s order and not encourage violent protests against the film’s release. 

State’s decision to support safe release is “loud and clear”

Senior Advocate Satish Parasaran, representing the film’s Producer, stated that it was not fringe elements, but a Minister of the state government, who had fuelled the controversy. Justice Manmohan replied that the state has now corrected itself. Its decision to support the release of the film was “loud and clear”. 

Parasaran claimed that he lost Rs. 30 crores due to the extra-judicial ban on the film’s release. However, he expressed satisfaction with the change in the state government’s stand and said he would not like to pursue his writ petition further. His writ petition before the Karnataka High Court was transferred to the Supreme Court. 

Earlier, the Karnataka government assured the Court, through an affidavit, that full protection and security would be provided for screening the movie. 

No additional costs imposed

The petitioner, Mahesh Reddy, insisted on laying down guidelines and imposing costs on those threatening violence to stall the film’s release. The Bench, however, observed that this is not an appropriate case for such relief. 

The judges instead directed that if any individual or group forcibly attempts to prevent the release of the film, the Karnataka government must take appropriate action under criminal and civil laws, and also award damages if necessary. 

In a lighter vein, the Bench recalled the iconic Tamil actor, Rajnikanth and the former chief minister of Tamil Nadu, J. Jayalalithaa. They remarked that both figures hailed from Karnataka and that real life is different from reel life. “All this shows we should be able to check emotions,” the Bench noted.