Yet again, the Supreme Court had to intervene in a matter that shouldn't even had to reach the court in the first place. Before discussing the Supreme Court's order dated 10.06.2025, let us delve into the entire controversy.
The controversy started when Kamal Haasan, an actor known for making political statements, made a comment on the Kannada language. In his exact words, he said, "Your language (Kannada) came from Tamil," and then all hell broke loose over the actor for saying that. Politicians immediately jumped on the bandwagon for clout and started demanding that Kamal Haasan apologise for this statement. The funny thing is that the statement might actually be true.
The statement came during the promotion of his film "Thug Life" in Karnataka. Since the movie was to be released in the state as well, people and politicians demanded that the film be banned entirely, and the Karnataka Film Chamber of Commerce (KFCC) banned the film.
Subsequently, the ban was challenged in the High Court of Karnataka. In this age, the hearings are publicly available on YouTube for everyone to see, and what we saw in that hearing was shocking. Instead of issuing a writ of mandamus allowing the screening of the film, the Hon'ble Justice of the High Court of Karnataka was seen giving an earful to Kamal Haasan's counsel. The Hon'ble Justice kept asking for an apology from Kamal Haasan as if the actor were bound by law to tender one. Further, the Hon'ble Justice stated that the "PUBLIC" was asking for the apology. How the Hon'ble Justice obtained the absolute mandate of the "PUBLIC" in this issue is not known, and even if the mandate exists, there is no law that says a person must apologise for their statement. However, the Hon'ble Justice also clarified that he was just pointing out the conduct of the actor but would consider the law as well.
Let us leave the linguistic debate to researchers, but in my opinion, a court cannot look beyond the law even when personal feelings are hurt. Kamal Haasan apologising is his own choice and cannot be forced, and certainly not in a court of law.
Now this matter reached the Supreme Court in WP (C) 575/2025, M. Mahesh Reddy vs. State of Karnataka.
The Karnataka Government filed an affidavit stating that the State was ready to provide protection for the screening of the film, and the Supreme Court praised the principled stand of the Karnataka Government.
"3. It is respectfully submitted that, in the event the producers of the film decide to release the movie in the State of Karnataka, the State Government is duty-bound and will provide protection and security for such release and for the people connected therewith, including the cast, director, producers, exhibitors, and the audience."
Subsequently, the Supreme Court held that, since the Karnataka Government had already given the affidavit stating the above, it disposed of the writ petition.
PERSONAL OPINION
Wherever there is an issue of sentiment in India, no one can predict what statement can hurt whom. Kamal Haasan, in his statement, was actually trying to connect with the people of Karnataka, but his statement offended them. On top of that, the Hon'ble Justice pointing out Kamal Haasan's statement does him no justice. He may be completely wrong, but these statements should not warrant court intervention at all.
No comments:
Post a Comment