The Karnataka High Court on Saturday signalled closure of the controversy surrounding Ranveer Singh after accepting his apology and undertaking to visit the Chamundi Hill temple in Mysuru. The case stemmed from remarks made by the actor during a public event that triggered allegations of hurting religious sentiments.
Court records apology and assurance
Justice M Nagaprasanna said he would dispose of Singh’s plea after formally recording his affidavit, in which the actor expressed unconditional regret. The court also noted Singh’s commitment to visit the temple within four weeks as a gesture of atonement.
The case had been filed after Singh’s comments at the International Film Festival of India, where he praised Rishab Shetty and his film Kantara Chapter 1, but referred to a deity in a manner that drew criticism.
Legal challenge and criminal charges
A criminal case was registered under provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, including sections related to promoting religious enmity and insulting religious beliefs. Singh approached the High Court seeking to quash the proceedings, arguing that his remarks were not intended to offend. His legal team later chose not to contest the case on the merits, instead submitting an apology affidavit and offering to make amends through a temple visit.
Also Read | Delhi HC sets aside suspension of DU principal over flawed probe process
Concerns over public responsibility
During the hearing, the complainant urged the court to issue a strong caution, arguing that public figures must be mindful of the impact of their words on religious sentiments. The court acknowledged these concerns and indicated that it would include an admonition in its final order. At the same time, Singh’s counsel assured the bench that the actor understood the sensitivity of the issue and had expressed genuine regret.
Also Read | Court draws line: Delhi HC orders takedown of AAP hearing videos from social media
Closure with a message
With the court set to formally dispose of the matter, the episode highlights the balance between freedom of expression and respect for cultural and religious beliefs. The High Court’s approach suggests a preference for corrective action and accountability over prolonged litigation in such cases.
