SC seeks Karnataka govts reply on plea seeking release of Thug life film in state
New Delhi, Jun 13 (PTI) The Supreme Court on Friday sought the Karnataka government's response on a plea seeking protection against alleged threats over the screening of Kamal Haasan's film "Thug Life" in Karnataka theatres.
A bench of justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Manmohan issued notice on M Mahesh Reddy's plea challenging the ban on the screening of the Tamil feature film, starring Haasan and directed by Mani Ratnam, in Karnataka.
Reddy in his plea, filed through advocate A Velan, contended that despite the movie being granted certification by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC), the Karnataka government has allegedly prevented its theatrical release through oral instructions and police interference, without issuing any official prohibitory order or any registration of an FIR qua the same.
Velan argued that such actions by the state amount to an unconstitutional restriction on free speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
The bench recorded the submission and said, "It is argued by the counsel appearing for the petitioner that a duly CBFC certified Tamil Feature Film 'Thug Life' is not allowed to be screened in the theatres in the State of Karnataka. The so-called ban under threat of violence stems not from any lawful process, but from a deliberate campaign of terror, including explicit threats of arson against cinema halls and incitement to large-scale communal violence targeting linguistic minorities."
While directing the copy of the petition be served upon the standing counsel for the state government, the bench said, "Considering the urgency shown in the matter and the issue involved, issue notice to the respondents, returnable on June 17, 2025."
The bench recorded his argument that the so-called ban under threat of violence stems not from any lawful process but from a deliberate campaign of terror, including explicit threat of arson against cinema halls, incitement of large-scale violence targeting linguistic minorities.
The plea said, "This reign of intimidation is a direct, flagrant violation of the Fundamental Rights to Freedom of Speech and Expression (Article 19(1)(a)) and to Practice any Profession (Article 19(1)(g)). More seriously, it is a calculated attack on the secular fabric and public order of the State."
It added that the Karnataka government through its authorities concerned has become a silent party to this undermining of the Constitution and its failure to use the full force of the law against those openly issuing threats of death, arson, and communal warfare is not just negligence; it is a surrender that effectively hands control to violent non-state actors.
"This constitutes a profound and flagrant failure of the law and order machinery in the state, signifying a dangerous weakening of the constitutional machinery's ability to function and protect its citizens," it said.
The plea sought direction declaring that the de facto ban on the screening of "Thug Life" in Karnataka, is illegal, unconstitutional, and void ab initio, being violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(a), 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution.
It also sought directions to the authorities including police to ensure the safe, secure, and unimpeded exhibition of the film in all cinema theatres and multiplexes across Karnataka, that are willing to screen it, and to take all necessary steps to prevent any recurrence of such intimidation for this or any other lawfully certified film.
The plea further sought direction to initiate and pursue with utmost diligence, accountability, and transparency, appropriate legal proceedings, including criminal prosecution, against all individuals and office bearers of organizations who have issued threats of violence, arson, or incited communal hatred/violence in connection with the release of the film.
On June 9, the top court refused to grant an urgent hearing on a plea filed by a theatre association seeking protection against alleged threats over the screening of the film in Karnataka theatres.
It had asked the theatre association from Karnataka to approach the Karnataka High Court instead.
"Thug Life" released in cinema halls across the country on June 5.
The Tamil movie, which reunites Haasan with filmmaker Mani Ratnam after 1987's "Nayakan", could not be released in Karnataka after the 70-year-old's comments about Kannada language sparked a major controversy.
It was also released in Telugu, Hindi and Malayalam.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
16 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Rewari village shuns family of Indian Navy staffer arrested for alleged spying
The residents of Rewari's Punsika village in Haryana on Sunday (June 29, 2025) decided to socially boycott the family of Indian Navy staffer, Vishal Yadav, arrested by the intelligence wing of the Rajasthan Police four days ago on charges of spying for Pakistan. Sarpanch Satyalpal Yadav told media persons that a decision had been taken at a meeting to ostracise the family for 'bringing a bad name to the village'. The young men in the village had also been cautioned to not indulge in any such 'illegal and anti-national activities' in the future, he said. Mr. Vishal Yadav belonged to a well-off family, and was good at both studies and sports, Prem Prakash Yadav, a villager, told a news channel. Mr. Vishal Yadav's family had served the country as his grandfather was an ex-serviceman, and his father an Assistant Sub-Inspector in the Haryana Police, he added. Although the family had shifted to Rewari five years ago, Mr. Vishal Yadav's arrest has caused embarrassment to the entire village, Mr. Prem Prakash Yadav said, adding, 'It still is difficult for us to believe it.' Sunil, another villager, said Mr. Vishal Yadav had not been in touch with the villagers after his family had shifted out. 'We felt bad to learn about his arrest. We interacted with him when the family stayed in the village. To us, he seemed to be a well-behaved boy,' Mr. Sunil said. VIDEO | Jaipur: Navy clerk Vishal Yadav accused spying for Pakistan produced before a local court. He was sent to police remand till June 30. #JaipurNews (Full video available on PTI Videos - — Press Trust of India (@PTI_News) June 26, 2025 The accused is an Upper Division Clerk in the Directorate of Dockyard at Nausena Bhawan. He was allegedly leaking classified information to a female handler of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) posing as an Indian woman. Mr. Vishal Yadav had been under surveillance since 2022, and was arrested on June 25 after data retrieved from his mobile phone was analysed.
News18
28 minutes ago
- News18
Sivakumar Says Suriya Now Leads The Family: ‘For Many Years, I Looked After Them, But Now…'
Last Updated: Veteran actor Sivakumar shares how son Suriya has taken over family responsibilities after becoming a successful star. While actor Suriya is immersed in the making of his upcoming film Suriya46 with director Venky Atluri, it's his father Sivakumar's heartfelt comments that have recently drawn attention. Speaking to Cinema Express, the veteran actor reflected on the evolution of their family dynamic, marking a symbolic transition in leadership. 'Once, I was the one guiding the family," Sivakumar said. 'I ensured Suriya got his education, supported him through his early job, and watched him rise as a hero. But now, he is the one who leads us all. We move forward under his guidance." The remarks, both proud and poignant, shed light on Suriya's role not just as a leading man in Tamil cinema but as the emotional and moral anchor of his household. Sivakumar, a celebrated figure in Tamil cinema since his debut in 1965's Kaakum Karangal, starred in nearly 200 films before stepping away from the limelight in 2008. Today, he continues to make public appearances, often lending his voice to social causes and literary events. Suriya, meanwhile, was last seen on screen in Retro, a romantic action drama helmed by Karthik Subbaraj. He played Paari, the foster son of a mob boss raised to be a weapon of destruction. But when love enters his life in the form of Rukmini (played by Pooja Hegde), Paari yearns to leave violence behind. The film charts his emotional transformation and the trials he faces in rediscovering his own humanity. Retro also featured Joju George, Jayaram, and Nassar in pivotal roles. Looking ahead, Suriya is gearing up for Karuppu, a commercial entertainer said to revolve around a vigilante fighting against systemic injustice. Directed by RJ Balaji, the film will see him share screen space with Trisha Krishnan. Additionally, the Kanguva actor is actively shooting for Venky Atluri's upcoming family drama, where he stars alongside Jana Nayagan breakout Mamitha Baiju. From his father's steady hands to his own powerful presence, Suriya's journey continues to be one of transformation—both on screen and at home. First Published:
Indian Express
29 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Vandita Mishra writes: Not just about the Emergency
Dear Express Reader, This has been a week of commemoration of the Emergency as a cataclysmic event in the distant past. This has been a week to acknowledge that the shadows cast by the suspension of democracy, 1975-1977, are long. Many of the challenges for a democratic politics are the same, and they have been routinised — the weaponisation of laws to shrink spaces for dissent and free expression, a politics of labelling and distrust, attempts by the Executive to undermine and subdue other institutions like the Media and the Court, demonisation of the Opposition. Other challenges are new, because in its long journey, democracy itself stands at a different milestone. At that time, when India's democracy was less than 30 years old, Emergency was the result of, and it contributed to, a waning of brightness — it capped a draining of the lingering idealism of a newly independent nation that had pledged to be not just a representative democracy, but one that abides by rules of the game laid down in the wise and layered Constitution it gave itself. The Constitution set up a mosaic of monitory institutions to scrutinise power, enforce accountability, enable checks and balances — political theorist John Keane has christened this new historical form of democracy, worldwide in the post 1945 era, as 'monitory democracy'. Today, 50 years after the Emergency, India's monitory democracy is showing signs of wear and tear. It is also dealing with the pressures of the age of communicative abundance. In a global context, Keane writes that 'historical comparisons show that the combination of monitory democracy and communicative abundance is without precedent. It produces permanent flux, an unending restlessness driven by complex combinations of different interacting players and institutions, permanently pushing and pulling, heaving and straining, sometimes working together, at other times in opposition to one another…' Even as this combination makes democracy more exciting and viral, it also has corrosive effects. It breeds cynicism, disaffection and distrust vis a vis Parliaments and parties, governing institutions and leaders. Parliamentary democracy is being publicly 'wrong-footed', says Keane, there is 'decay amidst abundance'. In India and elsewhere, this fraught juncture is now the site of the rise of a populist politics. 'We the people' becomes 'Me the people', there is a relentless search for the Other and the enemy within, and the winner takes all. The populist moment seizes on the prevalent disillusions, as much as it speaks to rising aspirations, to frame an agenda of anti-elitism. It also propagates a politics of anti-pluralism. The week in which 50 years of Emergency were marked ended with a rising — and disquietingly anti-pluralist — clamour that seems to give the lie to the self-righteous lip service to democracy over the last few days by the BJP-led establishment. An RSS general secretary set the ball rolling, asking for a discussion on whether the words 'socialist' and 'secular', added to the Constitution's Preamble by the Indira Gandhi government during the Emergency, should be retained. He was joined by the Vice President, who said that the change to the Preamble was a 'sacrilege to the spirit of sanatan' and the words were 'nasoor', a festering wound. A BJP chief minister chimed in: 'Socialism' and 'secularism' are Western concepts, have no place in Indian civilisation, he said. And two Union ministers added the weight of their office to the argument. This, when successive post-Emergency regimes have not reversed the Preamble amendment, even as other changes have been rolled back, and the Supreme Court has upheld it. Secularism was described as a 'basic feature' in the 13-judge bench Kesavananda Bharati ruling even before the Emergency-era amendment, and the non-justiciable Directive Principles of State Policy have been invoked to recognise that 'socialism' was an ideal for those who framed a Constitution for a society of great inequalities. It is evident that the real aversion is not to 'socialist' — in fact, on the broad direction of the economy, all post-liberalisation governments have looked the same, more or less. This choreographed controversy is about 'secular'. The Narendra Modi government, now in its third term, has presided over the steady challenging of the constitutional commitment to secularism as equal respect for all religions, and a spreading Hindu-isation of public institutions and spaces. The PM's conduct of the rituals of consecration of the Ram Temple at Ayodhya in January 2024 marked a turning point. It underlined the message that, amid growing polarisation, the religion of the majority community would now be a visible marker of the life of a diverse and multi-religious nation, demanding deference, if not prostration from all. So, at the end of a week like this one, is a question: Who is responsible for ensuring that the Emergency does not come again? Who is expected to take on the burden of an anti-Emergency politics that guards against attempts to chip away at pluralism and democracy? In the 2024 Lok Sabha polls, 'democracy-in-danger' and 'Constitution-under-siege' became electoral slogans and while the outcome saw a whittling down of the BJP government's numbers, it was certainly no mandate for the Opposition. Does that mean that the people don't worry, or worry enough, about the spectre of diminishing democracy? It is possible that for a people cynical about power politics, democracy's predicament is not a trumping argument because they see no good guys out there. And that for the optimistic and aspirational, the system seems strong and self-correcting enough, does not require their ministrations. It could be that when voters feel disrespected, or 'dis-esteemed', they are more likely to grant governments the licence to rule arbitrarily, and to look for strongmen with a steel fist. Or it could be, simply, that for all the talk about democracy-in-danger, democracy never really was on the election menu, because the Opposition was unable to make a case that was eloquent or vivid enough. Whatever be the real story of the 2024 Lok Sabha election, the onus is not, it should not be, on the vulnerable voter. Protecting democracy's letter and spirit is also a task too large to be left only to the Opposition — in fact, it must not be seen as a project that is partisan. Keeping democracy whole requires influential institutions and powerful stakeholders to take ownership of it, instead of putting it only on the Opposition or passing the buck to 'the people'. Till next week, Vandita
