New Delhi [India], June 17: The Supreme Court on Tuesday emphasized that any film duly certified by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) must be allowed to release, as it heard a plea seeking protection of theatres in Karnataka amid alleged threats against the screening of Kamal Haasan’s film Thug Life.
A bench comprising Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Manmohan stated that vigilante groups and mobs must not be permitted to disrupt public order or obstruct the screening of films. “People may choose to watch a film or not, but once it is approved by the CBFC, it must be released,” the bench remarked.
The Court directed the Karnataka government to file its response by Wednesday and scheduled the next hearing for Thursday. The urgency of the matter was acknowledged by the bench, which had issued notices in the previous hearing.
Counsel representing the Karnataka government informed the Court that the producer of Thug Life is working toward resolving the issue, which is also currently under consideration before the Karnataka High Court.
After considering the submissions, the Supreme Court decided to transfer the case from the Karnataka High Court to itself for further proceedings.
The plea was filed by Mahesh Reddy, who highlighted threats issued by fringe groups in Karnataka, allegedly creating a law and order situation. He requested the Court to direct the state government to ensure the safety of theatres screening the film.
On June 13, the Court had issued notices to the Karnataka government, State police, Raaj Kamal Films International Private Limited, and the Karnataka Film Chamber of Commerce (KFCC), seeking their responses.
During the earlier hearing, petitioner’s counsel A. Velan alleged that Karnataka authorities had taken no action against violent threats targeting linguistic minorities, following a controversial statement attributed to actor Kamal Haasan claiming, “Kannada was born out of Tamil.”
According to the plea, Thug Life is facing an unofficial ban in Karnataka due to intimidation by private groups, with the government failing to act. The petitioner argued that this inaction violates Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, which guarantees freedom of speech and expression—not only to filmmakers but also to audiences wishing to view the film.