No SC order on vigilance, it says that the state to work against violent acts. Bharat News

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday refused to implement or cost guidelines on a vigilance group for the release of Kamal Haasan-Star ‘Thug Life’ in Karnataka and stopped the proceedings, saying that the state should work against someone by resorting to screening or violence.‘Thug Life’ has not yet been released in Karnataka as Tamil’s threat of violence by those protesting against Hassan’s comment on being the mother of Kannada.When the PIL petitioner said it was a Minister of State, who made a statement to whip the passion, the bench said, “It is unfortunate, but after some Lashing, the kingdom has filed an affidavit. We hope that better understanding will be strong and the vigilance groups will never do in future. Once the state corrected itself and understood its duties and took a conscious and intelligent decision to maintain law and order, there is no need to keep the case pending.,When the petitioner continued to press to reduce the guidelines to prevent the threat of violence of vigilance groups, which stopped the violence to prevent the release of the censor board, approved films on various pretex, the state government lawyer DL Chidnand cleverly attracted the film’s producer, Rajkamal film International, and requested the court.For the manufacturer, senior advocate Satish Parashar said that although the non-relief of the film in Karnataka had spent around Rs 30 crore to the producer, it was now satisfied with the state government stand and was not intended to pursue the petition, which had moved from the Karnataka High Court to the Supreme Court on Tuesday.Through the Karnataka Film Chamber of Commerce (KFCC), Udayan Jain, it also said that although it was in conversation with the producer that to solve the deadlock arising out of Haasan’s statement on Kannada language, looking at the state stand, it would not oppose the film’s release in the state. It also questioned KFCC to apologize to Haasan.For one of the interverses, senior advocate Sanjay Nuli said that language was a very emotional subject for the people of Karnataka and the actor should have used restraint rather than indulging in such a promotional gimmick on the eve of the film’s release. The bench said, “If the actor prepared a promotional strategy, you fell for it. You file a defamation suit against the actor, but cannot take the law into your hands.”