The Supreme Court of India struck down an extra-judicial ban imposed by the Karnataka government on the Tamil-language film Thug Life—directed by the acclaimed filmmaker Mani Ratnam. The directive, implemented post-CBFC clearance, raised serious concerns over free speech and state overreach in film censorship jurisdiction.
Background & Legal Issues
Thug Life had successfully obtained certification under the standard Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) process. However, following protests from local interest groups, Karnataka’s state government moved to block screenings within its jurisdiction, even though no legal basis for such an intervention existed under existing film censorship laws like the Cinematograph Act. The film’s producers challenged this arbitrary order in the Supreme Court, asserting a violation of both statutory procedure and fundamental free speech rights.
Bench’s Order & Core Reasoning
1. CBFC as Sole Certification Authority: The Court reaffirmed that once a film receives CBFC certification—which vouches for its suitability for public exhibition—no state-level authority has unilateral power to impose bans or restrictions.
2. Safeguarding Free Speech: The judgment emphasized the Indian Constitution’s robust guarantees of freedom of speech and expression (Article 19(1)(a)), noting that preventive censorship post-certification must be justified through legitimate legal channels—not administrative fiat.
3. Rejection of Extra‑Judicial Bans: The Court categorically held that extra‑judicial directions, unsupported by legislative backing or judicial process, cannot override formal certification.
4. Injunction Against Enforcement: Karnataka’s public order or morality concerns were deemed insufficient to justify an abridgement, especially in absence of due legal process.
Wider Consequences
Artistic Freedom Reinforced: This ruling offers a vital victory to filmmakers and artistic communities, ensuring that creative expression remains protected from arbitrary state-level censorship.
Governance Implications: State governments are now required to follow legal protocols—such as invoking predetermined provisions like Section 5B of the Cinematograph Act—if they intend to block or impose conditions on films.
National vs. State Jurisdiction: The judgment underscores the primacy of national-level certification over state discretion in cultural governance—a reaffirmation of a centralized framework for managing film content.
The Supreme Court’s decision stands as a signal safeguard for civil liberties, curbing unlawful state interventions in cultural and artistic domains. It upholds the doctrine that state power in democratic India must operate within the boundaries of law.