“Rule of Law Must Prevail”: Supreme Court Slams “Mob Rule”, Pushes For Thug Life’s Release

The Bench of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Manmohan was hearing a petition challenging what it called a “de facto ban” on the release of the film in the state.

The controversy arose after certain groups demanded a ban, alleging the film was “offensive”—despite it having been cleared by the CBFC.

The Counsel for Karnataka informed the Bench that the High Court was already seized of a related matter and sought time until Thursday to respond. However, the Supreme Court dismissed this submission.

“We can’t let mobs and vigilance take over the streets. File your counter by tomorrow — you can’t act as a proxy. We will not allow this to happen,” Justice Bhuyan said.

The petitioner’s counsel further stressed that the state hadn’t lodged a formal complaint against the film.

The Bench responded by issuing urgent notice and directed the state to submit its response by Tuesday.

When the State’s counsel insisted on additional time and said the film’s producer had already approached the High Court, the Supreme Court remained firm. “So what? We will transfer it here. We will have it on Thursday, but you have your counter filed by tomorrow.”

Justice Manmohan underscored the principle at the core of the dispute: “The rule of law demands that any person should be allowed to release their film. It shouldn’t be held back due to fear of cinemas being burned or gherao.”

He added, “As my brother said, the rule of law must prevail. Once a film has a CBFC certificate, it must be allowed to release. Mr Jain, people can choose not to watch it—that's their right. But we can't block a film's release due to fear of theatre burnings.”

Justice Bhuyan drew a parallel from a Bombay High Court ruling in the 1990s, when the play Mee Nathuram Godse Boltoy was banned due to controversy, but the court struck it down. “We approved that ruling in Imran Pratapgarhi’s case. The freedom of expression includes the right to a different view," he said.

Justice Manmohan challenged the state's view, asking: “Mr Jain, does the law depend on the statement of a single person? Rule of law demands if a film has a CBFC certificate, it must be released. The state must assure this.”

Rejecting requests to defer the matter, the Bench insisted it was a matter of fundamental rights. “This is about the rule of law and fundamental freedoms; that's why the Supreme Court is directly intervening," Justice Manmohan said.

The Bench made it clear their role is to safeguard the constitution. “That's what the Supreme Court is meant for — we are the custodians of both the rule of law and fundamental rights," the Court said.

The matter is listed for further hearing on Thursday (June 19).

It also sought criminal prosecution against all individuals and office bearers of organisations who have issued threats of violence, arson, or incited communal hatred or violence in connection with the release of the film 'Thug Life', and to submit a status report on action taken to this court within a time-bound manner.

"What is at stake is more than just a film. It is the sanctity of the constitution itself, the authority of this court's own longstanding judgments protecting free speech against the "heckler's veto," and the very idea of India as a nation governed by laws, not by mob intimidation. The palpable inaction and effective abdication by the State authorities symptomatic of the systemic failure of law and order, in the face of this escalating crisis demand no less than this court’s decisive action to pull Karnataka back from the brink of lawlessness and prevent an imminent outbreak of serious violence. This PIL is an appeal to defend the core principles of our Republic," it said.

The petitioner contended the current situation in Karnataka, where fringe elements can openly issue threats of extreme violence, dictate terms to statutory and private bodies, and effectively stall a lawful activity of national interest, all the while the State machinery remains a passive spectator, points to a dangerous weakening and potential collapse of the constitutional machinery in the State to uphold the rule of law and protect citizens' fundamental rights.

The State of Karnataka, acting through its authorities has demonstrably and flagrantly failed in its primary constitutional and statutory duty to maintain law and order, to protect the fundamental rights of its citizens from infringement by non-state actors, and to ensure that the rule of law prevails over mob censorship and the "heckler's veto", the plea claimed.

This serious situation occurs within a disturbing societal context where chauvinistic elements have targeted linguistic minorities such as Hindi speakers in Bengaluru with impunity, fostering a climate of fear that now directly threatens constitutional order over this film, it added.

The petitions submits that when "Victory Cinema", a movie theatre in Bengaluru announced its intent to screen 'Thug Life', forces of intimidation struck openly. T A Narayana Gowda of Karnataka Rakshana Vedike (KRV) publicly threatened to "set theaters on fire", while social media was used for inciting a violent revival of the 1991 anti-Tamil riots. Emboldened by the State's inexplicable passivity – itself a symptom of the breakdown in law and order – KRV members aggressively attempted a siege of Victory Cinema, it pointed out.

The Karnataka Film Chamber of Commerce is said to have buckled under this pressure, publicly admitting to imposing a ban due to – a clear sign of the collapse of lawful authority and a testament to the prevailing lawlessness. When the film's producer, Raaj Kamal Films International sought protection from the Karnataka High Court, the proceedings, distressingly, appeared to prioritise appeasement.

"Instead of a clear directive to the State to stop the illegal threats and protect a certified film's exhibition – fundamental to restoring law and order – the discussion reportedly focused on whether Kamal Haasan should apologise to the very fringe elements intimidating him and threatening public order. This effective endorsement of coercive censorship by suggesting compromise with perpetrators makes the High Court pathway currently ineffective for securing justice, compelling this urgent appeal to this Court as the ultimate guardian of the Constitution," the plea said.

This reign of intimidation is a direct, flagrant violation of the fundamental rights to freedom of speech and expression (Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution) and to practice any profession (Article 19(1)(g)). More seriously, it is a calculated attack on the secular fabric and public order of the State. The State of Karnataka, through its concerned authorities through its shocking dereliction of duty, has become a silent party to this undermining of the Constitution, the plea said.

"The failure to use the full force of the law against those openly issuing threats of death, arson, and communal warfare is not just negligence; it is a surrender that effectively hands control to violent non-state actors. This constitutes a profound and flagrant failure of the law and order machinery in the State, signifying a dangerous weakening of the Constitutional machinery's ability to function and protect its citizens," it has further alleged.

Case Title: M Mahesh Reddy v. State of Karnataka