By Dilip Bobb
Kamal Haasan and Mani Ratnam are to South Indian cinema what the three Khans combined are to Bollywood. Their decision to reunite after 37 years was meant to be a watershed moment for the actor-director-producer duo, Instead, it has turned into a tense political and courtroom drama after Haasan refused to apologise for his ill-judged remark that Kannada was born out of Tamil. In Karnataka, the outrage led to cinemas refusing to release the film and mobs taking to the streets in protest, demanding an apology from the mega star.
Haasan, who approached the Karnataka High Court for relief under the right to livelihood, was faced with the disapproval of the Court which pointed out that he was neither a linguist or a historian, and as such had no right and repeated the demand that all he had to do was apologise. Hassan has refused to do so, whether out of ego or wounded pride. His legal team, led by senior advocate Dhyan Chinappa, argued that the comment was not intended to malign the language or its speakers.
In a letter to the Karnataka Film Chamber of Commerce (KFCC), Haasan expressed his “utmost respect for the language” and stated: “We have made this statement out of the greatest sincerity of my heart. My love and affection for the people of Karnataka is always abiding.” However, that wasn’t enough for the High Court which observed that the letter, while heartfelt, lacked a direct apology. It insisted on an apology as if it were a condition. “Everything in this statement is fine. Only one sentence is missing,” Justice Nagaprasanna remarked, suggesting that perhaps a simple “sorry” could resolve the matter.
The High Court’s insistence on an apology met with resistance from Haasan’s legal team. It argued that an apology was unwarranted in the absence of any malice. “Apology is needed where there is malice,” Chinappa asserted, adding: “ It’s not ego. An explanation has been given. There was no intention to insult the language.” The judge, however, remained unconvinced, stating: “You are sticking on to your ego. It is the sentiments of the masses that have been undermined…” He further pressed: “Then why not end it saying sorry?” to which the counsel replied: “Everything I can say, I have already said.”
Haasan has consistently refused to apologise, despite repeated calls, the Court’s prodding, and the ongoing outrage from the Karnataka lobby. As the Court aptly noted: “Apology is not a compulsion. It should have been the grace that he should have followed.” Yet, Haasan’s firm stance hints at a broader defence of his right to free speech and his ability to conduct his business without undue restriction.
The easiest path for Haasan would have been to issue a perfunctory apology, but he chose instead to prioritise his convictions, even at the cost of delaying Thug Life’s release in Karnataka. He has said that “I can wait and the release of the movie in Karnataka can also wait,” Chinappa informed the Court.
Those invoking the right to freedom of expression claimed Haasan had violated it, yet it was never established whether his remark about Kannada or Tamil being older actually fell under any of the reasonable restrictions listed in Article 19(2). Article 19(2) of the Constitution allows the State to impose reasonable restrictions on the right to freedom of speech and expression in the interest of public order, decency, morality, national security, and other specified grounds. These restrictions ensure that individual liberty does not harm the collective interest or disrupt societal harmony. Haasan remained defiant, saying: I’ve been threatened earlier too, and if I am wrong, I would apologise; if I’m not, I won’t.”
That led to the issue reaching the Supreme Court, which disapproved of the Karnataka High Court’s observation asking Haasan to apologise for his “Kannada-Tamil” remark, saying: “it wasn’t the court’s business to seek an apology.” The apex court made the critical remark during a hearing for the release of the film in Karnataka. “It is none of the business of the High Court,” the top court observed. It also came down heavily on the state government over the blocking of the film in Karnataka, saying that mobs and vigilantes cannot be allowed to take to the streets. It said that the rule of law demands that any film cleared by the Central Censor Board has the right to be released anywhere in India.
A bench of Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Manmohan said the rule of law has to be established and guns cannot be put to people’s heads to stop them from watching the movie. “We can’t allow mobs and vigilante groups to take over the streets. The rule of law must prevail. We can’t allow this to happen. If somebody has made a statement, counter it with a statement. Somebody has made some writing, counter it with some writing,” the bench said.
Adding that there were different views over freedom of speech, Justice Bhuyan cited an earlier Bombay High Court judgment which set aside the ban on the play, Me Nathuram Godse Boltoy, and added: “We can’t let mobs and vigilante groups to take over our streets. The rule of law must prevail.” The bench has transferred the proceedings pending before the High Court to itself, saying it was an urgent matter and involved freedom of speech. Justice Manmohan remarked: “This is concerning a fundamental right. Therefore, this court is intervening. It’s not just the screening of a film. It is much bigger than that.” The Court directed the state government in Karnataka to “uphold the rule of law” and ensure the film’s smooth release. That the film has proved to be a flop, even in Tamil Nadu, is not relevant to the apex court’s proceedings; the firm stand taken by the Court on upholding the freedom of speech is a welcome development, considering such freedoms are frequently abused and interrupted by violent mobs and vigilantes.
Films are especially vulnerable to such attacks. In 2018, the Supreme Court stayed the notifications of the governments of Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh and Gujarat which had banned the screening of the Deepika Padukone-Ranveer Singh starrer, Padmaavat, which had been targeted for allegedly distorting history, despite clearance from the Central Board of Film Certification. These protests, led by the Karni Sena, erupted before anyone had actually seen the film, apart from the censor board.
In 2023, the apex court had to again intervene to ensure the release of The Kerala Story in West Bengal, after the state government banned it, citing potential law and order problems. The film that claims to tell the story of Hindu and Christian women lured into joining the Islamic State group had stirred a huge controversy, mostly political, with Opposition politicians calling it propaganda and an attempt to destroy religious harmony while the BJP backed the film. In fact, Prime Minister Narendra Modi even praised it at a political rally and some BJP party members also hosted screenings and distributed free tickets.
Earlier this year, another Malayalam film on the depiction of the 2002 Gujarat riots, was also cleared by the CBFC, but faced huge protests, leading the producers of the film to make “voluntary modifications”.
In that context, the Supreme Court’s intervention in Thug Life is a welcome reminder that the rule of law and freedom of speech are still upheld and implemented. The truth is that such protection remains a challenge in a country where mob rule has become the norm rather than the exception, and, in general, the soft target has been Bollywood.
In fact, the first film to be taken to court was in KA Abbas vs Union of India back in 1970, a case involving censorship. It centred on the censorship of KA Abbas’ documentary film, A Tale of Four Cities, and the restrictions placed on its exhibition due to certain scenes deemed unsuitable for public viewing. It was a landmark Supreme Court judgment regarding film censorship in India. KA Abbas challenged the pre-censorship of films under the Cinematograph Act, 1952, arguing that it violated his fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression as guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. The core issue was whether pre-censorship, a form of prior restraint, was a legitimate restriction on free speech, especially for artistic expression like filmmaking.
The Supreme Court acknowledged that films, unlike print media, can have a greater impact on impressionable minds, particularly children. The Court upheld the constitutionality of film censorship, emphasizing that it is a necessary measure for maintaining public order, morality, and decency. The Court recognized that while freedom of speech is a fundamental right, it is not absolute and can be subject to reasonable restrictions in the interest of society.
The Court upheld the constitutionality of pre-censorship of films, stating it was a justifiable restriction on the freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, particularly in the interest of public order and morality. The Court emphasized that censorship, while permissible, must be reasonable and not arbitrary, with clear guidelines to avoid abuse of power.
In June 2024, the Supreme Court stayed the release of Annu Kapur’s film Hamare Baarah after taking note of allegations that the film was derogatory to the Muslim faith and to married Muslim women. A vacation bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta took note of the submission of lawyer Fauzia Shakil, who represented the petitioner, and asked the Bombay High Court to take a decision on the plea. “We have seen the movie trailer and all the offensive dialogues continue in the trailer,” the bench observed while staying the release of the film. A division bench of Justices BP Colabawalla and Firdosh Pooniwalla viewed the film and suggested certain changes to which both the makers and the petitioners agreed to.
Since then, the Supreme Court has taken upon itself to screen films for the judiciary and their families based on their positive social message. The first was 12th Fail, an inspirational story on an IAS aspirant, made by Vidhu Vinod Chopra, and the more recent was Kiran Rao’s Laapataa Ladies, which went on to receive critical acclaim in India and globally. Now, we have Kamal Haasan and the Supreme Court’s stout defence of free speech and fundamental rights, which, incidentally, could make for a more riveting screenplay than the one that is causing all the fuss in Karnataka.
—The writer is former Senior Managing Editor, India Legal magazine