The Supreme Court on Friday sought the Karnataka government's response to a petition seeking police protection for the release of Kamal Haasan-starrer Thug Life in the State. .The Bench of Justices PK Mishra and Manmohan took note of the allegation that the certified movie was not being allowed to be screened in Karnataka and that a de facto ban was in place due to threats of violence against cinema halls showing the movie."Considering the urgency shown, we issue notice to the respondent," the Court ordered..The plea has been filed by Bengaluru resident M Mahesh Reddy, alleging that despite the film receiving certification from the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC), it has effectively been banned in Karnataka due to threats of fringe organisations and the inaction of the State authorities."The State has completely capitulated. They have joined hands with extremist elements. One of the theatres were seized while women and children were still inside! No FIR was registered. The theatre management were running for cover," Advocate A Velan, representing Reddy, argued today. .Haasan recently commented that 'Kannada was born out of Tamil', triggering a backlash and calls to boycott his film.As per the plea before top court, after Victory Cinema announced its plan to screen the film in Bengaluru, Karnataka Rakshana Vedike (KRV) President TA Narayana Gowda allegedly threatened to “set theaters on fire” if any film of Haasan was released in the state.Around the same time, a social media post explicitly called for a repeat of the 1991 anti-Tamil riots and warned that violence would erupt after the film’s scheduled release on June 5, the plea adds.No cases were registered despite widespread public outcry over the tweet and the alleged threats, the Court was told.The plea further alleges that the threats escalated when KRV members attempted to lay siege to Victory Cinema on June 1. The Karnataka Film Chamber of Commerce (KFCC) subsequently announced a “ban” on the film, reportedly under pressure..According to the petitioner, although the producer of the film had approached the Karnataka High Court for police protection, the proceedings shifted focus to whether Haasan should apologise for his past statements.The petitioner has criticised this as appeasement, and alleged that it rendered the High Court route ineffective for securing fundamental rights. In the High Court, Hassan refrained from apologising for his statements, stating that he was in talks with KFCC regarding the issue.
