- Home
- /
- High Courts
- /
- Karnataka High Court
- /
- 'You May Be Kamal Haasan But You...
'You May Be Kamal Haasan But You Can't Hurt Sentiments Of Masses': Karnataka High Court Tells Thug Life Actor To Apologize For Remarks
Mustafa Plumber
3 Jun 2025 12:54 PM IST
"You may be Kamal Haasan or anybody, you cannot hurt the sentiments of the masses," remarked the Karnataka High Court on Tuesday (June 2) while orally suggesting to actor Kamal Haasan to apologise for his statement which is stated to have hurt the sentiments of people of the state.Justice M Nagaprasanna after seeing the video of the audio release of the film 'Thug Life', said “He has said...
"You may be Kamal Haasan or anybody, you cannot hurt the sentiments of the masses," remarked the Karnataka High Court on Tuesday (June 2) while orally suggesting to actor Kamal Haasan to apologise for his statement which is stated to have hurt the sentiments of people of the state.
Justice M Nagaprasanna after seeing the video of the audio release of the film 'Thug Life', said “He has said that Kannada language is born out of Tamil language.”
Senior Advocate Dhyan Chinnappa appeared for petitioner Raajkamal Films International, and contended that the statement was made in a different context. He said “Please see the context in which the statement was made.”
Chinnappa further said, “Superstar of the Kannada film industry was also present during that event. The statement made cannot be taken outside and say that he is saying something against Kannada language.” He also submitted the reply filed by Hassan soon after the incidewnt.
Following which the court orally said:
“There is no apology in it. You may be Kamala Haasan or anybody, you cannot hurt the sentiments of the masses. The division of this country is on linguistic lines. A public figure cannot make such statements. What has happened because of it is unrest, disharmony. People of Karnataka only asked for an apology. Now you come here seeking protection.”
The court questioned the expertise of Haasan in making the statement it said “On what basis have you made the statement, are you a historian, linguist. On what basis did you speak?"
The court also cited the example of Shri Rajgopal Acharya who had 75 years ago made a similar statement and a letter was written to him.
The court thereafter orally said, “After 75 years, a similar statement was made and then Shri Rajgopal had apologised. Now you are seeking protection for the release of your film. An apology would have done.”
In the plea it is mentioned the said film is a work-of-art that has been painstakingly crafted over several years, and marks the second feature film collaboration between two doyens of the Indian film industry, Kamal Haasan and director Mani Ratnam, after the 1987 film 'Nayagan'. Expectations have been rife that a second collaboration between these two artists would produce a similar impactful work of art with cineastes across India, including in Karnataka, eagerly awaiting its release.
The bench said “You know the importance of the film saying it is made by Mani Ratnam but you cannot make a statement (Apology).”
It added “For your own creation you want police machinery to support now. Language is a sentiment attached to the people. You are not an ordinary man, you are a public figure. People writing on social media are also being investigated.”
Further the court said “Now you want the film to be run in Karnataka, leave it. Fundamental right of speech and expression cannot be stretched to hurt sentiments of masses.”
It added “You apologise, you want to earn from here.”
It further orally said, “Discretion is the best part of valour, we will not permit anybody's sentiments to be taken for a ride. Mistakes happen, you must know what to do when mistakes happen.”
To a submission by the petitioner that some people may want to watch the film and their right is being taken away the court remarked, “Let them come before the court, that I want to watch Thug Life.”
It further said, “Due to slip of tongue anything can happen. Spoken words cannot be taken back but it can be apologised. You cannot unscramble a scrambled egg.”
The court has now adjourned the hearing to 2.30 pm today while remarking, “Use your good office and come back, all is well that ends well. I will take it at 2.30 pm.”