Introduction:
The Delhi High Court on Wednesday heard a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the alleged use of the song “Shoorveer” in the climax of Mirzapur: The Movie, with the petitioner claiming that the track, originally composed as a tribute to the 16th-century warrior king Maharana Pratap, had been used in a manner that was derogatory to the historical and cultural legacy associated with it.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice D.K. Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia, however, suggested that the petitioner should first approach the Central Government and the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) with the grievance. While hearing the plea, the Bench made it clear that it was not expressing any opinion on the merits of the allegations and repeatedly directed the petitioner towards the appropriate governmental authorities.
The PIL has been filed by Prashant Kumar Singh through Advocates Shashank and Shashwat. The petition raises concerns over the placement of “Shoorveer” as the backdrop to a fight sequence involving fictional characters in the film. According to the petitioner, the song carries a distinct cultural and historical association because it was composed as a tribute to Maharana Pratap, a prominent historical figure associated with resistance and military valour in the 16th century.
The grievance before the Court is therefore not merely about the use of a particular musical track in a cinematographic work. The petitioner has sought to raise a broader question concerning the manner in which songs associated with historically or culturally significant personalities may be used in films, particularly where their placement could, according to the petitioner, create an undesirable association between the historical figure and fictional criminal characters.
The petitioner has alleged that the song was used during the climax to accompany a fight involving fictional gangsters. It is the petitioner’s case that such placement changes or distorts the original cultural context of the composition and may create a misleading association in the public mind between the legacy of Maharana Pratap and fictional criminal characters portrayed in the film.
The plea also invokes the need to balance cultural sensitivities with the constitutionally protected freedom of artistic and creative expression. Rather than seeking only removal of the song from the particular film, the petitioner has also sought the framing of appropriate guidelines governing the use of songs associated with historically and culturally significant personalities in cinematographic works.
The issue thus brings together competing considerations relating to artistic freedom, cultural representation, historical memory and the regulatory framework governing films. While the petitioner seeks intervention to prevent what he describes as an inappropriate and derogatory association, the Court also recognised the importance of freedom of speech and expression while considering whether judicial intervention was appropriate at the present stage.
The film had already been released on September 4 and, according to the petitioner, was in wide circulation by the time the matter came before the High Court. The petitioner therefore urged the Court to intervene urgently, contending that every continued screening or circulation of the film with the song allegedly caused continuing harm.
The Bench, however, questioned why the petitioner had not first approached the Central Government. When the petitioner submitted that approaching the Government would involve delay and that bureaucratic hurdles could prevent an effective and timely remedy, the Court did not accept that as a reason to bypass the governmental mechanism at the initial stage.
During the hearing, the Chief Justice also observed that if the alleged use was indeed derogatory, that aspect would have to be considered alongside the freedom of speech and expression. The Court further observed that whether the depiction amounted to art or fell within protected artistic expression was a matter that could appropriately be considered by the Central Government, particularly since the Court itself was not an expert in the subject.
The hearing consequently focused on the proper forum and the sequence in which the grievance should be considered rather than on a final determination of whether the song’s use was actually derogatory.
The Court also interacted with counsel appearing for the producer of the film and asked whether the counsel had watched the film. Counsel replied that he had not. The Chief Justice thereafter asked the producers to watch the film, and the matter was listed for further hearing the following day.
At this stage, therefore, the High Court has not finally upheld or rejected the petitioner’s allegations. The proceedings remain focused on whether the grievance should first be considered by the competent executive and certification authorities and on the competing considerations surrounding the use of the song.
Arguments of the Parties:
The petitioner, Prashant Kumar Singh, challenged the alleged use of “Shoorveer” in the climax of Mirzapur: The Movie, principally on the ground that the track carries a significant historical and cultural association with Maharana Pratap. According to the plea, the song was composed as a revered tribute to the historical warrior king and was not merely an ordinary piece of music capable of being detached from its cultural context without consequence.
The petitioner argued that the placement of the song behind a fight sequence involving fictional gangsters amounted to an inappropriate use of a composition connected with a revered historical figure. The grievance was that the musical tribute, when juxtaposed with fictional criminal characters, could potentially diminish or distort the cultural significance of the song.
The petitioner further contended that the use of the track could create an undesirable association in public memory. According to the plea, viewers unfamiliar with the original context of the composition could come to associate the song with the fictional characters and conduct depicted in the film. The petitioner claimed that this would effectively blur the distinction between the historical legacy represented by Maharana Pratap and the fictional criminal world portrayed in the film.
The petitioner’s concern was therefore framed as one involving cultural representation rather than simply a disagreement with a particular creative decision. The plea asserted that a song associated with a national historical icon should not be used in a manner that, according to the petitioner, glorifies or places fictional gangsters in the same cultural frame as that historical figure.
The petitioner also pointed to the wide circulation of the film. Since the film had already been released on September 4, the petitioner urged the High Court to consider the matter on an urgent basis. It was submitted that the alleged harm was continuing because the film remained available to audiences and the disputed sequence continued to be viewed.
When the Chief Justice asked why the petitioner had not first approached the Central Government, the petitioner submitted that such a course would result in delay. The petitioner referred to alleged bureaucratic hurdles and argued that the grievance required immediate intervention because of the continuing circulation of the film.
The petitioner also argued that the existence of freedom of speech and expression could not, by itself, prevent consideration of the grievance raised in the PIL. The submission was that fundamental rights must be balanced and that artistic freedom should not be understood as permitting the alleged derogatory use of culturally significant material without scrutiny.
The petitioner consequently sought a direction that the Central Government consider and decide the grievance within a fixed time period. This, according to the petitioner, would provide an effective mechanism for addressing the dispute without allowing the alleged harm to continue indefinitely.
The PIL also seeks relief extending beyond the particular film. The petitioner has sought the framing of appropriate guidelines governing the use of songs associated with historically or culturally significant personalities in cinematographic works.
According to the petition, such guidelines should ensure that the use of such songs does not result in an undesirable or misleading association with criminal, anti-social or otherwise contrary conduct. At the same time, the petitioner has acknowledged the need to balance such safeguards with freedom of artistic and creative expression.
The respondent side, including the producer of the film, did not place detailed submissions on the merits before the Court during the hearing as reflected in the material provided. The Court did, however, engage counsel appearing for the producer and specifically asked whether counsel had watched the film. Counsel stated that he had not.
The Court’s interaction with the producer’s counsel indicates that the Bench considered it important for those representing the film to be familiar with the actual depiction before taking a position on the controversy. The Chief Justice subsequently asked the producers to watch the film, following which the matter was listed for further consideration.
The Court itself also identified freedom of speech as an important consideration. The Chief Justice observed that if the alleged conduct was indeed derogatory, that would have to be considered in the context of the constitutional protection afforded to freedom of speech and expression.
The respondents’ position, as emerging from the hearing, therefore had to be considered against the larger legal framework regulating films and artistic expression. The Court did not assume that the petitioner’s characterization of the scene was necessarily correct. Instead, it indicated that the appropriate authorities should first examine the grievance.
The Bench also observed that whether a particular depiction constitutes art is a matter requiring consideration by the Central Government, particularly because the Court is not an expert in the subject. This observation reflected the Court’s reluctance to make an immediate determination on the artistic character or cultural impact of the film without the benefit of consideration by the authorities entrusted with the relevant regulatory functions.
Thus, while the petitioner sought urgent judicial intervention based on alleged cultural harm, the Court’s approach was to direct the grievance towards the executive and certification framework while expressly reserving its position on the merits.
Court’s Judgment:
The Delhi High Court did not adjudicate the substantive question of whether the use of “Shoorveer” in Mirzapur: The Movie was actually derogatory. Instead, the Division Bench focused on the appropriate forum and procedure through which the grievance should initially be considered.
Chief Justice D.K. Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia suggested that the petitioner should approach the Central Government and the CBFC. The direction was significant because the petitioner had approached the High Court directly, contending that the continuing circulation of the film required immediate judicial intervention.
The Bench nevertheless declined to make any final observation on the merits. During the hearing, the Chief Justice specifically stated that the Court was not making any comments on the merits of the plea.
The Court’s approach reflected the need to distinguish between deciding whether a grievance exists and determining which authority should initially examine that grievance. The petitioner claimed that the song’s use was derogatory and culturally harmful, whereas the question of whether the film’s depiction was artistically justified or impermissible required examination of the actual content and context of the scene.
The Chief Justice observed that if the alleged use was indeed derogatory, the matter would nevertheless have to be considered alongside the freedom of speech and expression. The observation is important because the Court did not treat the petitioner’s cultural objection as automatically overriding the constitutional protection accorded to artistic expression.
The Court thus recognised that the dispute involves competing considerations. On one side is the petitioner’s claim that the use of a historically significant song alongside fictional gangsters could distort its cultural meaning. On the other is the principle that artistic and creative expression receives constitutional protection and that restrictions on such expression require appropriate legal justification.
The Bench further observed that whether the depiction constituted art should be decided by the Central Government. The Court stated that it was not an expert on the issue, thereby indicating that the relevant authorities were better placed to assess the film and its artistic context in the first instance.
This did not amount to an endorsement of the film’s depiction. Nor did it amount to acceptance of the petitioner’s allegation. Rather, the Court expressly kept the merits open while directing attention towards the governmental mechanism.
The petitioner’s submission that approaching the Government could take time was also considered. The petitioner argued that the film was already widely circulated and that the alleged harm was continuing. The petitioner also referred to bureaucratic hurdles. Despite these submissions, the Bench reiterated that the petitioner should approach the Government.
The Court also considered the position of the producer’s counsel during the hearing. The Chief Justice asked counsel whether he had watched the film. Counsel stated that he had not. The Bench thereafter asked the producers to watch the film.
The direction is significant in the context of the controversy because the dispute concerns the precise manner in which the song has allegedly been used. A determination about whether the song has been used in a derogatory manner necessarily requires consideration of the relevant sequence, its context and the overall presentation in the film.
The Court therefore did not proceed to determine the issue solely on the basis of the allegations contained in the petition. Instead, the producers were asked to familiarise themselves with the film while the matter was kept for further hearing.
The matter was accordingly listed for the following day. The order at this stage therefore does not constitute a final decision either directing removal of the song or rejecting the petition.
The case also raises a wider legal question regarding the relationship between artistic freedom and cultural sensitivity. The petitioner has sought guidelines for the future use of songs and compositions associated with historically or culturally significant personalities. Such a request, if considered, would necessarily require careful balancing between protection against misleading or derogatory associations and the freedom of filmmakers and artists to use existing cultural material creatively.
The Court’s observations indicate that such balancing cannot be undertaken in isolation from the constitutional protection of freedom of speech and expression. At the same time, the Court did not rule out the possibility that an objection based on the manner of artistic use could be examined by the competent authorities.
The proceedings therefore demonstrate the importance of context in disputes concerning artistic expression. A musical composition may have a particular historical association, but whether its use in a contemporary cinematic work is permissible cannot necessarily be determined merely by identifying that association. The manner of use, the surrounding visuals, the narrative context and the effect of the depiction may all become relevant to the regulatory assessment.
The Court’s refusal to express an opinion on the merits at this stage also preserves the possibility of a more informed consideration after the competent authorities examine the grievance. The petitioner remains free to place the alleged cultural and historical concerns before the Central Government and the CBFC, as suggested by the Bench.
The plea also presents a broader policy question. The petitioner’s request for guidelines concerning songs associated with historical figures seeks to establish a framework within which cultural material could be used in films without creating, according to the petition, misleading associations with criminal or anti-social conduct. Any such framework would necessarily have to account for the constitutional value attached to artistic freedom and the creative choices of filmmakers.
For the present, however, the Delhi High Court has not ruled that the use of “Shoorveer” in the film violates any legal or constitutional provision. It has also not held that the song must be removed or replaced. The Bench has instead directed the petitioner towards the Central Government and the CBFC and expressly kept the merits open.
The next stage of the proceedings will therefore depend upon the manner in which the grievance is considered and the material placed before the Court. The Court’s present intervention remains procedural rather than a final adjudication of the cultural or constitutional dispute.
The case ultimately brings into focus a recurring challenge in the regulation of cinema: how to protect cultural and historical sensitivities without unnecessarily restricting legitimate artistic expression. In the present proceedings, the Delhi High Court has so far chosen not to resolve that balance itself on the limited material before it. Instead, it has asked the concerned authorities to consider the grievance while ensuring that the question of artistic freedom remains part of the legal equation.
The matter in Prashant Kumar Singh v. Union of India & Ors. therefore remains pending for further consideration. The Court’s observations have clarified that no final view has been taken on whether the song’s alleged use is derogatory, whether it amounts to protected artistic expression, or whether any direction for removal or replacement is legally warranted.