Supreme Court Lifts Ban on Kamal Haasan’s Thug Life

Veteran actor Kamal Haasan recently found himself at the center of a linguistic controversy after comments he made about the Kannada language during a promotional event for his upcoming film Thug Life. His statement suggesting that Kannada originated from Tamil sparked widespread outrage in Karnataka, leading the Karnataka Film Chamber to impose a ban on the film’s release in the state.

In response, Kamal Haasan approached the Karnataka High Court seeking intervention. However, the court not only declined immediate relief but also rebuked the actor, questioning his authority to make such historical assertions and even suggesting he issue a public apology—something Kamal chose not to do.

The matter then escalated to the Supreme Court, where Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Manmohan took a firm stance in favor of artistic freedom. The bench ruled that any film cleared by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) must be allowed to release and that it is the responsibility of the state to ensure its smooth screening. The court directed the Karnataka government to lift the ban on Thug Life and ensure its theatrical release.

Importantly, the bench also criticized the Karnataka High Court for demanding an apology from Kamal Haasan. “If Kamal Haasan made certain comments, they are not gospel truth,” observed the bench. “The people of Karnataka could have debated or challenged the statement, but a ban is not the answer. Freedom of speech is fundamental, and the demand for an apology was unnecessary.”

While the legal battle may have tilted in Kamal’s favor, public sentiment remains skeptical. On social media, many users pointed out that Thug Life has already failed commercially in other regions, and lifting the ban may not significantly alter the film’s trajectory in Karnataka.

Earlier concerns that Kamal’s future films could also face trouble in the state have now been eased. The Supreme Court’s verdict reinforces that once a film receives CBFC certification, no regional authority has the right to block its release. The ruling sets a clear precedent against censorship based on political or cultural disagreements.

With this decision, the judiciary has once again underlined the importance of upholding creative freedom while also encouraging more constructive and democratic responses to controversial opinions.