The Karnataka government had banned Thug Life, a film with the actor, Kamal Haasan. The reason lay in a public comment by Mr Haasan where he said that the Kannada language was born out of Tamil. Mobs erupted in disorder and threatened to burn the theatres. The Supreme Court came down heavily on the Karnataka government for this “extra-judicial ban”. The court gave primacy to free expression and the law. Since the film had the Central Board of Certification certificate it was unlawful to ban it. Law could not be hijacked by mobs and vigilantes. Freedom of expression could not be prey to hurt sentiments. Caste, language and so on were emotive issues, and any comment would hurt someone or other. That was no excuse for the public to take law into its own hands. Hurt sentiments could not jeopardise films, or a comedy show, or the recitation of a poem critical of the system. It was the duty of the State to punish violent acts, ensure the filming, and protect everyone associated with it. The Supreme Court also hauled up the Karnataka Film Chamber of Commerce for directing Mr Haasan to apologise. It could not take law into its own hands. There should be a debate if Mr Haasan were to be proven wrong.
The ruling of the Supreme Court is of outstanding importance at a time when hostile public sentiment and demands for apologies have become the dominant culture. This not only attacks free expression but also manipulates it by creating fear. The Supreme Court’s ruling has a resonance far beyond artistic expression. Vigilante culture stopped the filming of Deepa Mehta’s Water, for example, and created alarming disorder after the film, Padmaavat, was shown. It is public sentiment that ultimately forced the artist, M.F. Husain, to leave India. Public sentiment and vigilante action interfere in all spheres of life in India. Dissent, lynching people on the suspicion of carrying or storing beef, for instance, or insisting on vegetarian food on specific days and closing meat shops, guarding against inter-caste or inter-community marriage by threats and coercion — the list is endless. What is striking is that such unlawful activity is not penalised although it is against both the law and the Constitution. The Supreme Court’s ruling is a firm reassertion of balance.