New Delhi: This controversy began at the audio launch of Thug Life in Chennai on May 24, where Kamal Haasan reportedly said that “Kannada was born out of Tamil”. On Friday, the Supreme Court issued a notice to the Karnataka government on a public interest litigation challenging the extra-judicial ban on the screening of Tamil film Thug Life, starring Kamal Haasan and directed by Mani Ratnam.
The appeal, filed by Mahesh Reddy, contended that the film, despite approval by the Central Board of Film Certification, is being prevented from releasing in Karnataka due to threats and intimidation from extremist elements. Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Manmohan posted the matter for hearing on June 17.
Appearing for the appeal, counsel argued that the Karnataka government has completely capitulated to fringe elements issuing threats of arson and violence against cinema halls and linguistic minorities. The appeal claimed that these threats, sparked by actor Kamal Haasan’s recent remarks about the Kannada language, have led to an unofficial ban on the film, even though there has been no legal prohibition.
The comment drew sharp criticism in Karnataka, prompting the Karnataka Film Chamber of Commerce to bar the screening of the film and demand an apology from the actor. In a hearing before the Karnataka High Court, Hassan’s counsel informed the bench that the actor and his production house, Raajkamal Films International, had voluntarily deferred the release of the film in the state and were seeking dialogue with the Karnataka Film Chamber of Commerce.
Senior advocate Dhyan Chinappa, representing Haasan, told the court on that day the actor had expressed respect for the Kannada language and people and had no intention to offend. An apology is required only if there is malice. There is no malice here, said Chinappa, adding that Kamal Haasan’s written statement conveyed goodwill and affection but could not be forced into a prescribed format.
Describing Kamal Haasan’s statement as a declaration of justification, the high court also questioned the logic of seeking police protection without first taking steps to de-escalate tensions. Police protection but are unwilling to utter one word that could calm the unrest. Sticking to your stand because of your ego. Observed the bench while adjourning the matter.
