Supreme Court’s ‘Thug Life’ ruling does not erase threat of ‘mob veto’

“The Supreme Court’s directive reinforces the principle that freedom of expression cannot be stifled by threats or public pressure,” said Tanu Banerjee, partner at Khaitan & Co. “It sends a strong message that states have a duty to protect lawful film releases, which could encourage similar judicial protection for other contentious works in future.” 

India has a long history of theatrical releases being disrupted due to protests. This includes Aamir Khan’s 2006 film Fanaa, which never released in many theatres in Gujarat after protests against the actor’s criticism of the state government’s handling of the Narmada dam project. Period drama Padmaavat (2018) faced protests and was banned in many states—the Supreme Court later stayed the state bans.

Greenlit, yet under fire

The Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in the Thug Life case reinforces that once the Central Board of Film Certification has granted clearance, neither mobs nor political pressure should be allowed to override that legal right, said Anupam Shukla, partner, Pioneer Legal. “This directive reinforces the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech and expression, asserting that law and order must prevail over the arbitrary dictates of protesting groups. It sets a benchmark. Future filmmakers can now petition the Supreme Court early if local threats emerge.”

The Supreme Court indeed case paves the way for theatres to take a strong position on releasing films, despite threats of agitation, and similarly empower authorities to deal with the threats in a proactive manner, according to Niharika Karanjawala-Misra, principal associate at Karanjawala & Co. State governments should provide police protection in such instances where there are either threats of violence or protests which might physically derail a particular screening, she added. If threats of violence are allowed to cancel and overthrow film releases, there will only be an increase in such intimidating behaviour, said Karanjawala-Misra.

Enforcement on the ground is often weak and motivated by various factors locally. A film producer who did not wish to be named pointed out that state governments can still use the “law and order” excuse to quietly stall releases using their powers under Section 13 of the Cinematograph Act, 1952, and there are rarely any real consequences for those who issue threats or intimidate theatres.

Screening hangs by security

Gaurav Sahay, founder partner at Arthashastra Legal, said that despite favourable judicial orders, the release of controversial films can still be subjected to real and credible threats from fringe groups, political outfits, or religious factions. Judicial pronouncements often require robust implementation by the executive and law enforcement agencies to be truly effective, Sahay said.

There are remedies that a filmmaker can seek if their film doesn’t release despite court orders. Alay Razvi, managing partner, Accord Juris, pointed out that they can file contempt petitions against state officials for failure to comply with the Supreme Court’s directions or seek compensation claims under the public law remedy for violation of fundamental rights. However, the overreliance on judicial relief could also congest the courts with similar public interest litigations. Ultimately, while this prudential check empowers filmmakers, real-world compliance remains uncertain unless states sincerely mobilize law enforcement machinery, according to Razvi.

“Even with legal affirmation and a valid CBFC certificate, filmmakers and theatres may still hesitate–because threats, protests, or unofficial pressure can make screenings risky and commercially unviable. The ruling is a step in the right direction, but without stronger penalties for those who obstruct releases or clearer mechanisms to protect exhibitors, extra-judicial bans can still thrive in practice,” said Aishwarya Kaushiq, partner, disputes practice, BTG Advaya.

The on-ground release can still fall prey to “mob veto”, Kaushiq said. “What truly enables the release of such films is enforcement through effective state machinery. Proactive police protection, unambiguous support from government officials, and swift legal action against those obstructing lawful screenings can make all the difference.”