Cinema and the Courts – India Legal
By Dilip Bobb
Kamal Haasan and Mani Ratnam are to South Indian cinema what the three Khans mixed are to Bollywood. Their determination to reunite after 37 years was meant to be a watershed second for the actor-director-producer duo, As a substitute, it has changed into a tense political and courtroom drama after Haasan refused to apologise for his ill-judged comment that Kannada was born out of Tamil. In Karnataka, the outrage led to cinemas refusing to launch the movie and mobs taking to the streets in protest, demanding an apology from the mega star.
Haasan, who approached the Karnataka Excessive Court docket for aid below the proper to livelihood, was confronted with the disapproval of the Court docket which identified that he was neither a linguist or a historian, and as such had no proper and repeated the demand that each one he needed to do was apologise. Hassan has refused to take action, whether or not out of ego or wounded pleasure. His authorized group, led by senior advocate Dhyan Chinappa, argued that the remark was not supposed to malign the language or its audio system.
In a letter to the Karnataka Movie Chamber of Commerce (KFCC), Haasan expressed his “utmost respect for the language” and acknowledged: “Now we have made this assertion out of the best sincerity of my coronary heart. My love and affection for the folks of Karnataka is at all times abiding.” Nevertheless, that wasn’t sufficient for the Excessive Court docket which noticed that the letter, whereas heartfelt, lacked a direct apology. It insisted on an apology as if it have been a situation. “Every little thing on this assertion is ok. Just one sentence is lacking,” Justice Nagaprasanna remarked, suggesting that maybe a easy “sorry” may resolve the matter.
The Excessive Court docket’s insistence on an apology met with resistance from Haasan’s authorized group. It argued that an apology was unwarranted within the absence of any malice. “Apology is required the place there may be malice,” Chinappa asserted, including: “ It’s not ego. A proof has been given. There was no intention to insult the language.” The decide, nonetheless, remained unconvinced, stating: “You’re sticking on to your ego. It’s the sentiments of the plenty which have been undermined…” He additional pressed: “Then why not finish it saying sorry?” to which the counsel replied: “Every little thing I can say, I’ve already mentioned.”
Haasan has constantly refused to apologise, regardless of repeated calls, the Court docket’s prodding, and the continued outrage from the Karnataka foyer. Because the Court docket aptly famous: “Apology shouldn’t be a compulsion. It ought to have been the grace that he ought to have adopted.” But, Haasan’s agency stance hints at a broader defence of his proper to free speech and his potential to conduct his enterprise with out undue restriction.
The simplest path for Haasan would have been to situation a perfunctory apology, however he selected as an alternative to prioritise his convictions, even at the price of delaying Thug Life’s release in Karnataka. He has mentioned that “I can wait and the discharge of the film in Karnataka also can wait,” Chinappa knowledgeable the Court docket.
These invoking the proper to freedom of expression claimed Haasan had violated it, but it was by no means established whether or not his comment about Kannada or Tamil being older really fell below any of the cheap restrictions listed in Article 19(2). Article 19(2) of the Structure permits the State to impose cheap restrictions on the proper to freedom of speech and expression within the curiosity of public order, decency, morality, nationwide safety, and different specified grounds. These restrictions be certain that particular person liberty doesn’t hurt the collective curiosity or disrupt societal concord. Haasan remained defiant, saying: I’ve been threatened earlier too, and if I’m incorrect, I might apologise; if I’m not, I received’t.”
That led to the difficulty reaching the Supreme Court docket, which disapproved of the Karnataka Excessive Court docket’s remark asking Haasan to apologise for his “Kannada-Tamil” comment, saying: “it wasn’t the courtroom’s enterprise to hunt an apology.” The apex courtroom made the crucial comment throughout a listening to for the discharge of the movie in Karnataka. “It’s not one of the enterprise of the Excessive Court docket,” the highest courtroom noticed. It additionally got here down closely on the state authorities over the blocking of the movie in Karnataka, saying that mobs and vigilantes can’t be allowed to take to the streets. It mentioned that the rule of legislation calls for that any movie cleared by the Central Censor Board has the proper to be launched wherever in India.
A bench of Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Manmohan mentioned the rule of legislation must be established and weapons can’t be put to folks’s heads to cease them from watching the film. “We will’t permit mobs and vigilante teams to take over the streets. The rule of legislation should prevail. We will’t permit this to occur. If any person has made an announcement, counter it with an announcement. Any individual has made some writing, counter it with some writing,” the bench mentioned.
Including that there have been totally different views over freedom of speech, Justice Bhuyan cited an earlier Bombay Excessive Court docket judgment which put aside the ban on the play, Me Nathuram Godse Boltoy, and added: “We will’t let mobs and vigilante teams to take over our streets. The rule of legislation should prevail.” The bench has transferred the proceedings pending earlier than the Excessive Court docket to itself, saying it was an pressing matter and concerned freedom of speech. Justice Manmohan remarked: “That is regarding a basic proper. Subsequently, this courtroom is intervening. It’s not simply the screening of a movie. It’s a lot greater than that.” The Court docket directed the state authorities in Karnataka to “uphold the rule of legislation” and make sure the movie’s easy launch. That the movie has proved to be a flop, even in Tamil Nadu, shouldn’t be related to the apex courtroom’s proceedings; the agency stand taken by the Court docket on upholding the liberty of speech is a welcome growth, contemplating such freedoms are regularly abused and interrupted by violent mobs and vigilantes.
Movies are particularly susceptible to such assaults. In 2018, the Supreme Court docket stayed the notifications of the governments of Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh and Gujarat which had banned the screening of the Deepika Padukone-Ranveer Singh starrer, Padmaavat, which had been focused for allegedly distorting historical past, regardless of clearance from the Central Board of Movie Certification. These protests, led by the Karni Sena, erupted earlier than anybody had really seen the movie, other than the censor board.
In 2023, the apex courtroom needed to once more intervene to make sure the discharge of The Kerala Story in West Bengal, after the state authorities banned it, citing potential legislation and order issues. The movie that claims to inform the story of Hindu and Christian ladies lured into becoming a member of the Islamic State group had stirred an enormous controversy, principally political, with Opposition politicians calling it propaganda and an try to destroy non secular concord whereas the BJP backed the movie. The truth is, Prime Minister Narendra Modi even praised it at a political rally and a few BJP celebration members additionally hosted screenings and distributed free tickets.
Earlier this yr, one other Malayalam movie on the depiction of the 2002 Gujarat riots, was additionally cleared by the CBFC, however confronted big protests, main the producers of the movie to make “voluntary modifications”.
In that context, the Supreme Court docket’s intervention in Thug Life is a welcome reminder that the rule of legislation and freedom of speech are nonetheless upheld and applied. The reality is that such safety stays a problem in a rustic the place mob rule has change into the norm quite than the exception, and, typically, the mushy goal has been Bollywood.
The truth is, the primary movie to be taken to courtroom was in KA Abbas vs Union of India again in 1970, a case involving censorship. It centred on the censorship of KA Abbas’ documentary movie, A Story of 4 Cities, and the restrictions positioned on its exhibition as a result of sure scenes deemed unsuitable for public viewing. It was a landmark Supreme Court docket judgment relating to movie censorship in India. KA Abbas challenged the pre-censorship of movies below the Cinematograph Act, 1952, arguing that it violated his basic proper to freedom of speech and expression as assured by Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. The core situation was whether or not pre-censorship, a type of prior restraint, was a authentic restriction on free speech, particularly for creative expression like filmmaking.
The Supreme Court docket acknowledged that movies, in contrast to print media, can have a larger impression on impressionable minds, notably kids. The Court docket upheld the constitutionality of movie censorship, emphasizing that it’s a obligatory measure for sustaining public order, morality, and decency. The Court docket acknowledged that whereas freedom of speech is a basic proper, it isn’t absolute and could be topic to cheap restrictions within the curiosity of society.
The Court docket upheld the constitutionality of pre-censorship of movies, stating it was a justifiable restriction on the liberty of speech and expression below Article 19(1)(a) of the Structure, notably within the curiosity of public order and morality. The Court docket emphasised that censorship, whereas permissible, have to be cheap and never arbitrary, with clear pointers to keep away from abuse of energy.
In June 2024, the Supreme Court docket stayed the discharge of Annu Kapur’s movie Hamare Baarah after being attentive to allegations that the movie was derogatory to the Muslim religion and to married Muslim ladies. A trip bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta took notice of the submission of lawyer Fauzia Shakil, who represented the petitioner, and requested the Bombay Excessive Court docket to take a call on the plea. “Now we have seen the film trailer and all of the offensive dialogues proceed within the trailer,” the bench noticed whereas staying the discharge of the movie. A division bench of Justices BP Colabawalla and Firdosh Pooniwalla considered the movie and advised sure adjustments to which each the makers and the petitioners agreed to.
Since then, the Supreme Court docket has taken upon itself to display movies for the judiciary and their households primarily based on their optimistic social message. The primary was twelfth Fail, an inspirational story on an IAS aspirant, made by Vidhu Vinod Chopra, and the more moderen was Kiran Rao’s Laapataa Girls, which went on to obtain crucial acclaim in India and globally. Now, we’ve Kamal Haasan and the Supreme Court docket’s stout defence of free speech and basic rights, which, by the way, may make for a extra riveting screenplay than the one that’s inflicting all of the fuss in Karnataka.
—The author is former Senior Managing Editor, India Authorized journal
