'You May Be Ranveer Singh But You Can't Hurt Religious Sentiments': Karnataka High Court On 'Kantara' Movie Mimicry; Stays Coercive Steps

The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday (February 24) told Bollywood actor Ranveer Singh that he cannot, by virtue of being a celebrity, hurt religious sentiments of a community and that he must, when making public appearances, remain cautious of his words and actions.

Justice M Nagaprasanna orally observed,

"You being actor have influence on so many people. When you have that you shud be responsible. You may mimic you may do anything. You have no right to hurt anyones religious sentiments…You cant be loose tongue at all. You may be Ranveer Singh, you may be anybody."

The remarks were made while hearing the actor's plea to quash an FIR registered against him over his mimicry of a character in 'Kantara: Chapter 1' movie during the 56th IFFI Festival of India organised by the Government of Goa last year. In the event the petitioner is stated to have mimicked role of of actor Rishab Shetty in the movie and referred to the deity the words 'female ghost'. 

As per news reports, the FIR was registered against Singh for allegedly hurting religious sentiments by mocking and insulting the sacred 'Daiva' (Bhoota Kola) tradition depicted in the movie.

Senior Advocate Sajan Poovayya appearing for Singh at the outset admitted that Singh's statement was "completely insensitive". Poovayya submitted that petitioner has been reckless and has tendered apology on mistake committed by him, after coming to know the importance of 'Chamundi Daiva' whom he had mimicked on the stage and had called it a female ghost. 

"You must be responsible in your statements," the Court then told him, adding that whether there was any mens rea (intent) involved or not would be examined by the Court.

Till then (March 02), the Court has restrained the State from taking any coercive steps against Singh provided petitioner cooperates with investigation. 

Courtroom Exchange

During the hearing, Poovayya submitted that the actor is willing to do everything which may undo his "recklessness".

The judge however observed that Singh's apology cannot take back his words.

"I may forget you may forget internet never forgets...when actor go on stages and try to do all this. You have to exercise caution…religious sentiment of the people should be respected...you speaking of a deity, mimicking of a deity. Why film was made explanation is there. But standing on a stage you cannot take it so lightly...sentiments of people of State cannot be taken on ride by anybody. You have definitely hurt the sentiments," the Judge said.

As Poovayya sought to submit that Singh's actions were not "deliberate", the Judge responded, "I'm not saying it is deliberate statement. It is gross ignorance. It is a sacred act of the region."

The Complainant's counsel then claimed that Singh was asked to stop the mimicry.

Surprised, the Court remarked, "he should have been very very careful" and asked the Complainant and State to file their objections to Singh's plea.

Singh's plea challenges an FIR registered on the complaint of an advocate, under Sections 196(Promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony), 299(Deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs), 302(Uttering words, etc., with deliberate intent to wound religious feelings of any person) of BNS 2023.

The plea further seeks quashing of a January 23 order passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate under Section 175(3) BNSS 2023 directing investigation into the complaint filed against the actor. 

"It is one line order. It says its a fit case of investigation...your lordships have held that careless statements do not mean deliberate under BNS," Poovayya argued.

Singh's plea also, in the interim, seeks stay of further investigation in the FIR. 

Section 175(3) BNSS empowers magistrate to order investigation into a complaint made under Section 210 BNSS after making  inquiry as he thinks necessary and submission made in this regard by the police officer, order such an investigation as above-mentioned.

Case title: Ranveer Singh v/s State of Karnataka & Anr

CRL.P 3024/2026