The Karnataka high court on Tuesday restrained the state police from taking any coercive action against actor Ranveer Singh in connection with an FIR over his alleged mimicry of a character from the Kannada film ‘Kantara’, while orally observing that the actor “had no right to do what he has done” and should have exercised greater caution.
Justice M Nagaprasanna issued notice on Singh’s petition seeking quashing of the private complaint and the consequent FIR, and directed that no coercive steps be taken against him until the next hearing on March 2.
Singh was booked following orders of a Bengaluru court that accepted a private complaint filed by a city-based lawyer. He faces charges under sections 196, 299 and 302 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), including promoting enmity between religious groups, deliberate acts intended to outrage religious feelings, and public mischief.
The HC made strong oral observations on the responsibility of public figures. Referring to the alleged mimicry, justice Nagaprasanna noted that the act involved a sacred regional deity and that Singh should have been cautious.
“You may be Ranveer Singh, you may be anybody…but you cannot be loose-tongued,” the judge said.
Appearing for Singh, senior advocate Sajan Poovayya submitted that the actor had no intention of hurting anyone and that an “insensitive statement” made during a film festival had led to the complaint. He argued that offences under sections 196 and 302 of the BNS require deliberate intent, and that mere carelessness would not attract criminal liability.
Urging the court to view the video of the speech, Poovayya said, “Seeing it is believing,” and questioned whether Singh should be subjected to criminal proceedings.
The court further observed that even in the absence of deliberate intent, the act could amount to “gross ignorance”.
“Religious sentiments of the people of the state cannot be taken for a ride by anybody,” the high court said. “You are speaking of a deity, mimicking of a deity. Why the film was made, the explanation is there. But standing on a stage you cannot take it so lightly.”
Poovayya told the HC that Singh was willing to do whatever was necessary to “undo his recklessness” and added that the actor was “Bengaluru’s son-in-law” who had no intention of disrespecting the people of the city or the State.
Counsel for the complainant argued that Singh continued despite being asked to stop, a submission also relied upon by the State to oppose interim relief.
While clarifying that it was not examining the merits of the case at this stage, the Court remarked that the act appeared to be “deliberate”.
“He (Singh) should have been very, very careful,” justice Nagaprasanna said.
In its order, the HC recorded that Singh, a “well-known actor,” had participated in the 56th International Film Festival of India in Panaji, Goa, where he allegedly mimicked actor Rishab Shetty’s role in ‘Kantara Chapter 1’ and referred to a deity as a “female ghost”.
The court granted time to the state to file its objections and reiterated that no coercive steps should be taken against Singh until the next date of hearing.
The complainant, Prashant Methal, alleged that Singh mimicked sacred expressions and mannerisms associated with Panjurli and Guliga Daiva, spiritual deities worshipped in coastal Karnataka, in a “crude and humorous way,” and referred to a Daiva as a “female ghost,” thereby hurting religious sentiments.
In his petition, Singh has maintained that his mimicry was an “honest appreciation” of the character from the film and that it had been wrongly given a “criminal colour”.
Singh had approached the HC on February 23 seeking quashing of the FIR and an interim stay on proceedings. He has challenged the January 23 order of the Bengaluru additional chief judicial magistrate, which took cognisance of the private complaint and directed the police to register an FIR.