“You Cannot Be Loose-Tongued”: Karnataka HC Protects Ranveer Singh From Arrest, Issues Stern Warning

BENGALURU — Justice M. Nagaprasanna of the Karnataka High Court on Tuesday issued a notice to the State government on Ranveer Singh’s petition to quash the FIR against him. The case stems from Singh’s appearance at the 56th International Film Festival of India (IFFI) in Goa last November, where his attempt at humor reportedly crossed a line for devotees of coastal Karnataka’s sacred traditions.

The Controversy: “Female Ghost” and Sacred Deities

The complaint, filed by Bengaluru lawyer Prashant Methal, alleges that Singh’s performance at IFFI was not merely an impression of actor Rishab Shetty, but a “crude” mockery of the Panjurli and Guliga Daiva—spiritual deities central to the culture of coastal Karnataka.

• The Allegation: Singh allegedly mimicked the sacred “Bhoota Kola” expressions and referred to the Daiva as a “female ghost.”
• The Charges: Singh is booked under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023:
  • Section 196: Promoting enmity between religious groups.
  • Section 299: Deliberate acts intended to outrage religious feelings.
  • Section 302: Uttering words with deliberate intent to wound religious feelings.

Court’s Observations: “Gross Ignorance”

While granting interim protection, the Court did not mince words regarding Singh’s conduct:

• On Responsibility: “You may be Ranveer Singh, you may be anybody… you cannot be loose-tongued,” Justice Nagaprasanna observed, noting that public figures must exercise extreme caution when discussing regional deities.
• On Intent: The Judge remarked that even if the actor didn’t intend to offend, his actions displayed “gross ignorance” of the sacred nature of the film’s subject matter.
• On the Act: The Court noted that the mimicry appeared “deliberate” and warned that religious sentiments “cannot be taken for a ride by anybody.”

The Defense: “Bengaluru’s Son-in-Law”

Senior Advocate Sajan Poovayya, representing Singh, argued that the actor’s actions were an “honest appreciation” of the film that was being unfairly criminalized.

• Undo the Recklessness: Poovayya stated Singh is willing to do whatever is necessary to “undo his recklessness.”
• Personal Connection: In an emotional appeal, the counsel noted that Singh is “Bengaluru’s son-in-law” (referring to his marriage to Deepika Padukone) and intended no disrespect to the State.

Key Legal Provisions: Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)