Back
Suggests Petitioner Approach Centre, CBFC Over 'Shoorveer' Song in Film
The on Wednesday declined to immediately intervene in a seeking the removal of the song "Shoorveer" from the climax of the film Mirzapur: The Movie , instead directing the petitioner to first approach the and the . A comprising Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia observed that while the alleged use of the song might be derogatory, the court was not an expert on the matter and that freedom of speech was a relevant consideration.
The PIL, filed by one Prashant Kumar Singh, objects to the use of "Shoorveer"—a track originally composed as a tribute to the 16th-century warrior king Maharana Pratap—as the backdrop to a fight scene involving fictional gangsters. The petitioner argued that such usage deeply hurts the cultural legacy of the country and creates a misleading association between a national hero and cinematic criminals.
Background of the Controversy
The song "Shoorveer" was originally created as a reverential ode to Maharana Pratap, a historical icon celebrated for his valour and resistance against the Mughal Empire. According to the petition, the track was never intended to accompany scenes glorifying gangsters or violent criminality. The PIL contends that using a song dedicated to a national hero to backdrop cinematic criminals severely distorts its original cultural context, thereby equating the legacy of Maharana Pratap with fictitious gangsters in the public memory.
The film Mirzapur: The Movie , a spin-off of the popular web series, was released on and is in wide circulation across streaming platforms. The petitioner sought urgent intervention from the court, arguing that the alleged derogatory use was causing continuing harm due to the film's broad reach.
Court Proceedings: Reluctance to Intervene
During the hearing, the
made it clear that it was not expressing any opinion on the merits of the plea. Chief Justice Upadhyaya remarked,
"If it is being done, it is definitely derogatory, but there is freedom of speech."
The bench further observed that whether the depiction constituted art or not should be decided by the
, since the court was not an expert in the issue.
The petitioner urged the court to intervene on an urgent basis, stating that approaching the government would take time and that bureaucratic hurdles were a concern. However, the bench reiterated its stance, suggesting that the petitioner first approach the and the CBFC with the grievance.
"We're not experts," the Chief Justice noted, underscoring the court's reluctance to substitute its judgment for that of specialized bodies. The court also asked counsel appearing for the film's producer whether he had watched the film, to which the counsel replied that he had not. The Chief Justice thereafter directed the producers to watch the film and listed the matter for further hearing the next day.
Legal Analysis: Balancing Freedom of Speech and Cultural Respect
The case raises important questions about the intersection of and respect for cultural symbols. The guarantees under , but this right is subject to , including those relating to , , and . The CBFC, as a , is tasked with certifying films and can impose cuts or modifications to ensure compliance with these standards.
The petitioner's argument that cannot come at the cost of the grievance highlights the tension between individual and collective cultural sensitivities. While courts have traditionally been reluctant to act as censors, they have also recognized that the use of revered symbols in a derogatory manner can be restrained. In this case, the 's suggestion to approach the government first reflects a deference to executive and designed to handle such disputes.
The court's observation that "we're not experts" is significant. It acknowledges that determining whether a particular depiction is derogatory or constitutes art requires specialized knowledge—expertise that lies with the CBFC and the rather than the judiciary. This approach aligns with the principle of and avoids the court becoming an for every cultural grievance.
Impact on Legal Practice and Future Guidelines
The PIL also seeks the framing of appropriate guidelines for dealing with the use of songs associated with historically or culturally significant personalities in cinematographic works. Such guidelines would aim to ensure that the use of these songs does not result in an undesirable or misleading association with criminal, anti-social, or otherwise contrary conduct, while balancing artistic and .
If the court eventually directs the government to formulate such guidelines, it could have a wide-ranging impact on the film industry. Producers and directors may need to exercise greater caution when incorporating culturally significant music into scenes that could be perceived as disrespectful. For legal practitioners, this case serves as a reminder of the importance of and the role of the CBFC in preventing potential controversies.
The matter has been listed for further hearing on the next day, with the court having asked the producers to watch the film. It remains to be seen whether the petitioner will approach the government authorities as suggested or whether the court will be compelled to address the if the government fails to act expeditiously.
Conclusion
The 's handling of the Shoorveer song controversy underscores a cautious judicial approach to cultural disputes involving artistic works. By directing the petitioner to first before the and the CBFC, the bench has reaffirmed the primacy of specialized bodies in evaluating content regulation. At the same time, the court's observation on freedom of speech signals that any eventual decision must carefully balance competing interests. As the matter progresses, legal professionals will be watching closely for any development that may shape the future of film certification and cultural representation in India.
