The State-Assumed Ground For The Regulation Of Freedom Of Speech And Expression
- IJLLR Journal
- Aug 4
- 2 min read
Tiyasha Chakraborty, BA LLB (Hons), Symbiosis Law School, Pune
ABSTRACT
The freedom of speech and expression is the bedrock of democratic societies across the globe. The Karnataka Government’s ban on the film Thug Life reflects the rampant misuse of “public order” as an excuse for censorship. The Supreme Court noted the inalienable and non-derogable nature of constitutionally guaranteed freedoms. This case is just one of the of the long trajectory of past cases, when governments have often invoked law and order concerns to silence creative voices. This article examines the constitutionality of such actions, the judicial precedents on film censorship, and the State’s obligation to protect, not curb, fundamental rights.
Introduction
The Supreme Court's recent decision on the Karnataka Government's ban on the film "Thug Life" accentuates a very peculiar sense of understanding that has been running through the fabric of governments ever since the enforcement of fundamental rights. The movie was released on 5 June 2025 worldwide but in Karnataka, following remarks made by one of its producers, Kamal Haasan, during a press event where he claimed that "Kannada was born out of Tamil." The Karnataka Film Chamber of Commerce (KFCC) confirmed the ban on the film at the request of Karnataka's Minister for Kannada and Culture, as the comment sparked controversy within the Kannada-speaking population. However, the Supreme Court called this an "extrajudicial ban" and pronounced that such a ban violated the rule of law, which mandates the release of any film certified by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC), and affirmed that threats of arson and violence cannot curtail the rights of filmmakers and theatre owners to release and exhibit their movies.
