Karnataka HC hears Ranveer Singh’s case over IFFI remarks mimicking Rishab Shetty’s Kantara role, allegedly hurting religious sentiments. Court slams recklessness, grants interim protection till March 2. FIR under BNS 196, 299, 302. Counsel admits fault; next hearing Monday.
The Karnataka High Court has taken up a case involving actor Ranveer Singh, following his appearance at the 56th International Film Festival of India (IFFI) organized by the Goa government. The controversy arises from a segment during the event where Ranveer is said to have imitated Rishab Shetty’s character from ‘Kantara Chapter 1.’ His alleged comment describing a deity as a female ghost sparked objections, eventually leading to the present legal action.
Ranveer Singh gets interim relief
As per IndiaTV’s report, the court has instructed that objections be submitted before the next hearing. It has also ordered that no coercive action be taken by the state against the petitioner until the matter is heard on Monday, March 2. With the issuance of notice and temporary protection in place, the case is slated for hearing next week.
Ranveer Singh faces BNS charges
The case related to the Ranveer ‘Kantara’ controversy was presented before Justice M. Nagaprasanna of the Karnataka High Court. The FIR in the matter has been filed under BNS Sections 196 (promoting enmity between different groups), 299 (deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious sentiments), and 302 (using words with the intent to hurt religious feelings).
Ranveer Singh’s counsel admits fault
Appearing on behalf of Ranveer, Senior Advocate Sajan Poovayya addressed the court by first acknowledging the controversy surrounding the case. Referring to the actor’s remarks at IFFI Goa, he stated, “At the outset, I admit a completely insensitive statement made by me has led to this complaint being filed,” as reported by Live Law.
Court on Ranveer Singh remarks
As the proceedings unfolded, the court took note of the background in which the remarks were made. “Rishab Shetty was performing an act of deity. Goddess Chamundi. He may be aware or may not be aware of the impact of the religious sentiments towards the deity,” the judge observed. Highlighting the potential repercussions of such behavior, the Court further stated, “An act of mimicking Shetty would definitely hurt. You must be responsible in your statements. You can’t be loose-tongued at all. You may be Ranveer Singh; you may be anybody. Whether there is mens rea or not, we will examine.”
Judge flags Ranveer Singh’s influence
The judge also pointed out the significant influence that public figures hold. “You being an actor have influence on so many people. When you have that, you should be responsible. You may mimic; you may do anything. You have no right to hurt anyone’s religious sentiments…your apology will take back the words? I may forget, you may forget, but the internet never forgets.” To this, Poovayya responded, “I bow down.”
Caution urged in Ranveer Singh acts
The Court continued, “When actors go on stages and try to do all this. You have to exercise caution…religious sentiment of the people of the region should be respected.” It added, “You are speaking of a deity, mimicking a deity. Why film was made explanation is there. But standing on a stage, you cannot take it so lightly.”
Ranveer Singh’s counsel offers a fix
Poovayya submitted, “I am willing to do everything that undoes my recklessness.” Appearing for the complainant, counsel said, “I’ll file my objections,” while also adding, “He is our Karnataka’s son-in-law. It is not wound at heart but at my soul.” The Court responded, “Sentiments of people of the state cannot be taken on a ride by anybody. You have definitely hurt the sentiments.”
Ranveer Singh’s intent was debated
During the hearing, Poovayya cited relevant legal provisions and remarked, as reported by Live Law, “I am Imran Pratapgarhi. It was said that for the offense of 196, 302 BNS, there must be a deliberate statement made to cause discomfort (sic).” Responding to this, the Court clarified, “I’m not saying it is a deliberate statement. It is gross ignorance. It is a sacred act of the region.” Poovayya acknowledged the observation, saying, “Correct.” Meanwhile, the complainant’s counsel pointed out that the actor did not stop despite being warned. When the Court asked, “He was asked to stop?” the counsel confirmed, “Yes. Don’t do that, he says…”
State Ranveer Singh’s complaint
Presenting its stance, the State informed the Court that the Magistrate had already reviewed the complaint. “A complaint is filed. The magistrate has considered it. Not that the magistrate has referred it like any other case,” it submitted. In response, Poovayya argued, “It is a one-line order. It says it’s a fit case of investigation…your lordships have held that careless statements do not mean deliberate under BNS.” The State, however, reiterated, “The person asked him to stop. Despite that. It was not reckless.” Seeking clarity, Poovayya urged the bench to verify the footage, stating, “There was a video. Please see it… Please see the video. Seeing is believing.”
Ranveer Singh hearing scheduled
The Court proceeded to instruct that objections be filed and fixed the matter for hearing on Monday. “You file objections, and I’ll take it on Monday. But don’t take coercive steps till then. You (Ranveer Singh) are reckless and have no right to do what you have done,” the judge stated. Responding to the observation, Poovayya said, “I bow down,” and further requested, “If your lordship finds it as reckless, please consider if I need to go through the rigors of criminal proceedings.” Following this exchange, the Karnataka High Court granted interim relief to Ranveer Singh, restraining any coercive measures until the next hearing, while clarifying that the issue of accountability and its legal dimensions would be assessed further in the Kantara controversy.Disclaimer: The information in this report is based on a legal hearing as reported by a third-party source. The details provided represent allegations made by the parties involved and are not proven facts. The case is ongoing, and a final verdict has not been reached. The publication does not claim that the allegations are true. Go to Source
