The Supreme Court As A Protector Of Cultural Expression: An Analysis Of The Case Of “Thug Life” Film
- IJLLR Journal
- Jun 24
- 1 min read
Yadvendra Pratap Singh Bundela, Dr. Harisingh Gour Vishwavidyalaya Sagar (M.P.)
“If the freedom of speech is taken away, then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.”
– George Washington
Introduction: When Art Enters Politics
Kamal Haasan's movie Thug Life, directed by Mani Ratnam with a pan-Indian cast, was all set to be a spectacle on screen. But even before the release of the movie, it found itself caught in a whirlwind of protests—not due to the plot, but due to a comment by Haasan while promoting the movie. It was a stark reminder of how identity politics, popular sentiment, and legal confusion can whip away artistic freedom from India.
At the center of this row is a fundamental constitutional issue: Does freedom of speech endure in an environment where 'hurt sentiments' govern public debate?
The Spark: A Linguistic Comment, A Political Reaction
At a promotional function in Chennai in early 2024, Kamal Haasan had said that Tamil was "older than Kannada"—a remark based on linguistic history and scholarly argument. But in a state where language is immensely identified with cultural sensitivity and political identity, especially in Karnataka, the comment was perceived by some as insulting.
Pro-Kannada groups like Karnataka Rakshana Vedike and others responded sharply. They: Charged Haasan with linguistic chauvinism.
Burned film posters and threatened owners of theatres.Demanded an apology and protested against the release of the film in Karnataka.
Despite the fact that the film had already been cleared by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC), protests turned into threats of violence and public unrest.
