Bengaluru, June 3 (UNI) The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday took on record actor Kamal Haasan’s decision not to release his upcoming film 'Thug Life' in Karnataka for now, following controversy over his remark linking the origins of Kannada language to Tamil. The court noted that a simple expression of apology by the actor could have defused the situation.

The court was hearing a plea filed by the producers of 'Thug Life', challenging the Karnataka Film Chamber of Commerce’s (KFCC) decision to restrain the screening of the film in the State.

The controversy erupted after Haasan reportedly stated during the audio release of the film that "Kannada language was born out of Tamil", triggering strong objections from pro-Kannada organisations and KFCC.

Appearing before a bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna, senior counsel Dhyan Chinnappa submitted that Kamal Haasan held no malice against the Kannada language and had conveyed the same in a letter addressed to the KFCC.

However, the actor refrained from issuing an explicit apology for the remark, asserting that his statement had been misunderstood and that his love for Kannada remained "absolute".

Justice Nagaprasanna observed that while Kamal Haasan may not have intended to offend, his letter lacked the simple expression of apology that could have defused the situation.

"You may be Kamal Haasan or anybody else. The sentiments of the masses have been hurt. This country is divided on linguistic lines and public figures must be more cautious," the court remarked orally.

Chinnappa informed the court that the film's release in Karnataka would be held back voluntarily to allow time for dialogue with the KFCC. "Art can wait. Kamal Haasan says the release can wait in Karnataka," he said, adding that no police protection was being sought at this stage.

The court, taking note of the submissions, adjourned the matter to June 10 for further hearing.

"Since police protection is not being sought, let a dialogue or trilogue take place in the meantime," the bench stated.

The petitioners contended that the KFCC’s decision infringed upon their right to carry on a trade or profession as guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.

The bench, however, cautioned against prioritising artistic freedom over social harmony.

“People have an emotional attachment to their language and culture. Fundamental rights cannot be used to disturb public sentiment,” the court observed, while reminding the actor of his responsibility as a respected public figure.

UNI BDN RN