In our offence-sensitive nation, where people snap more selfies at a political event than at an emergency surgery, the Supreme Court of India has once again been the rock that stands freely pro-Constitution. The Supreme Court on June 19 shut down a petition filed against the release of the latest film Thug Life by Kamal Haasan in Karnataka with a thud mark not against the filmmakers but against a growing trend of uncontrolled restriction of art via offended sentiments and mob threats.

“We can’t let hurtful sentiments hijack the rule of law,” the Court said bluntly. And with this statement, the country heaved a sigh of relief. Well, at least, those who consider that the freedom of expression is a right, not a luxury.

The Film, the Fury, and the Fuss

The movie itself-- the gangster epic, Thug Life, starring and co-written by Haasan-- has been a subject of protests in Karnataka, where religious and cultural groups allege that it offends cultural sentiments. The irony of all this is the fact that these groups had probably not watched the film, a film that had not even made it to the cinemas. Why wait to be offended by facts when feelings suffice?

The Government Ministry of Karnataka said no official ban had been enforced. However, the ground reality was different. The theatres were fearful, exhibitors nervous, and the destiny of the film like a dangling bulb in a run-down theatre-- on and off, but not quite.

SC: “Mob Rule Can’t Be the Rule”

Conveying the opinion of the Supreme Court bench of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Manmohan, on Wednesday,18th June, over the issue, the Court was to the point. They ensure that when a film has passed through the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC), it does not leave any space to be censored by the mob or through the back doors of the government.

“There’s no end to hurt sentiments in India,” the bench observed, drawing laughs and nods in court. “If you don't like it, don't watch it. You can't silence the rest of the country."

The court gave directions to the Karnataka government to provide all protection to casts, crew, exhibitors, and audiences. The court lectured state authorities to either practice the rule of law or face chaos as a result of succumbing to pressure.

Déjà Vu: When Films Face Fury

This is not the first time that India has been forced to defend its manifesto against the fury of the “ever annoyed.” Our movie background is an album of outrage:

• Padmaavat (2018): The magnum opus of Sanjay Leela Bhansali was targeted by the fringe elements who felt that the creation had demeaned Rani Padmini, a queen whose existence is said to be mythical. Though the film was cleared by CBFC, it was banned, theatres were attacked, and the people wanted beheading (yes, beheading). The SC finally came to the rescue.
• PK (2014): The satirical depiction of religion done by Aamir Khan led to temples being burnt down and effigies being burnt. The movie set box-office records anyway--which may have been comedy enough in itself.
• Lipstick Under My Burkha (2017): CBFC attempted to prevent this feminist drama because it was too lady-oriented. And that is a real message. After some time, the pressure of the audience and the reviews were strong enough to saturate a release. In addition, a news flash: women exist.
• The Kerala Story (2023): At the point when local governments banned the show and controversy was in full swing, the Supreme Court swooped to the rescue once more. Artistic freedom was the priority, not raucous majoritarianism.

“Offence: A New Normal?

Coming clean: In India, you cannot sneeze without someone saying it is a slight to culture. We are a nation where an advertisement about mango caused so much outrage as it was too suggestive, where jokes get one in FIRs, and where stand-up comedians spend more time in the police station since there is no place on the stage.

It was a movie today. The next day, it could be a painting, a tweet, or even a card with a menu. The decision of the SC is not merely about Thug Life, it is about the marking of positions in the sand.

Justice Manmohan summed it up best: “India is governed by the rule of law, not the law of mobs.”

The Filmmaker’s Stand

Kamal Haasan is a 69-year-old connoisseur of artistic liberty, who has repeatedly favoured it in the past, and has already lamented at the increasing tendency to discourage cinema by means of social or political pressure. A Hollywood rebel who is an actor, director, and political leader, he has been breaking the boundaries of cinema and social spheres for decades. He has faced threats, bans, and boycotts since Hey Ram to Vishwaroopam, and never gave up. Speaking to media outlets before the verdict, he said:

“A certificate from the CBFC should mean a green light. Not a red rag for protestors. Filmmakers should not have to fight a new battle in every state after clearance from a national board.”

Following the Court’s decision, Haasan tweeted:

“Remarkable historic judgment from the Supreme Court. This was long overdue. The Supreme Court does not expect gratitude. Nevertheless, "Thanks" on behalf of the citizens who revere fundamental rights.”

What’s Really at Stake?

Let’s decode what this verdict means:

• CBFC's role reaffirmed –In case the CBFC has registered a film, no state can take control of the film under a pretence of investigating public order.
• A blow to extra-judicial censorship – The judgment invalidates nut jobs as a valid legal ground of action.
• State responsibility sharpened – Governments are no longer able to sit back with the excuse of being in a public mood. They are going to defend the word, not cop to the sentiment.
• A precedent for other art forms – Plays to podcasts, the message is the same: dislike it? Don’t consume it. But don’t silence it.

Final Take: India, Grow a Thicker Skin

We are a democracy and not a day-care. The Supreme Court, by closing the Thug Life plea, has not only defended the film but has defended our right to freedom. It has also defended the freedom of all the Indians to create, to speak, to joke, to criticise, to ask the question, to express.

Expression may be, sometimes, painful. It may be joking around with holy cows, literal or metaphorical. However, the solution to that is negotiating, not ravaging. 

In the words of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan - “The Constitution does not guarantee that you will never be offended. It guarantees that others can speak—even if you disagree with them.”

Conclusion:

In an era where sentiments are weaponised and facts are optional, the Thug Life judgment handed down by the Supreme Court is a deafening echo that the Indian constitution to guarantee of free speech must have no takers on the grounds of the number of protesters in the room.

Because in the end, as Kamal Haasan’s title suggests, some “thugs” wear robes and deliver justice, not threats.

.    .    .