Back
Public Interest Litigation in Seeks Removal of 'Shoorveer' Song from Mirzapur
A has been filed before the seeking the removal of the song "Shoorveer" from the climax of the recently-released film Mirzapur: The Movie . The petitioner, Prashant Kumar Singh, contends that the track—originally composed as a reverential tribute to the 16th-century warrior king Maharana Pratap—has been used in a violent gangster sequence, thereby distorting its cultural significance and glorifying criminality. The PIL, filed through advocates and , raises fundamental questions about the intersection of artistic freedom, historical reverence, and the on free expression under . The petition is yet to be heard, and no have been passed.
A Tribute Turned Controversy
The song "Shoorveer" was created by Rajasthani artist Rapperiya Baalam (Ashok Manda) as a patriotic ode to Maharana Pratap, celebrating his valour and sacrifice in the Battle of Haldighati. According to the petitioner, the composition was intended to inspire courage and national pride. However, in Mirzapur: The Movie —a theatrical extension of the popular streaming series produced by and —the same track plays over a climactic scene featuring characters such as Munna Tripathi and Guddu Pandit, who are portrayed as ruthless gangsters.
The PIL argues that this juxtaposition is deeply offensive.
"Using a song dedicated to a national hero to backdrop cinematic criminals deeply hurts the cultural legacy of the country,"
the plea states. It further contends that the original cultural context of the song will be "severely distorted," creating a misleading association in public memory between Maharana Pratap and fictitious gangsters. The petition seeks not only the removal or replacement of the track but also the framing of guidelines to prevent similar misuse of songs associated with historically or culturally significant personalities, while maintaining a balance with creative expression.
Political and Public Outcry
The controversy is not confined to the courtroom. BJP leader Rajendra Rathore has written to the Chairman of the
, Shashi Shekhar Vempati, urging the removal of the song. In his letter, Rathore expressed deep concern over what he called an "extremely objectionable" use of the track, stating:
"It is deeply concerning that the lyrics and sentiments of a song that was composed and performed with the purpose of paying tribute to the valour and bravery of Maharana Pratap Ji have been associated with the characters portrayed by the actors in the film. There is a clear distinction between the character and values of a Shoorveer (warrior) and those of a gangster."
Rathore further condemned the depiction, pointing out that characters like Munna Tripathi, who are shown making lewd remarks about women and engaging in immoral acts, are juxtaposed with references to Maharana Pratap’s horse Chetak and the Battle of Haldighati. He also drew a parallel to the controversy surrounding the film Padmaavat , where actor Swara Bhasker had criticised the depiction of Jauhar, calling it inappropriate to trifle with historical facts.
A Separate Copyright Dispute
Adding another layer to the legal tussle, Rapperiya Baalam has reportedly sent a legal notice to and the film’s producers over the alleged unauthorised use of "Shoorveer." The artist contends that although the track was released on a music label’s channel, the original copyright and associated certificates stand in his name. He argues that the producers ought to have verified the true ownership of the rights before including the song in the film. This separate grievance, rooted in contractual and copyright law, remains at the notice stage and is distinct from the PIL’s public-sentiment challenge. However, the convergence of both disputes has turned a single climax track into the subject of both a constitutional and a copyright claim.
Legal Framework: Balancing Artistic Freedom and Public Sentiment
The PIL sits at a delicate juncture of constitutional law and entertainment regulation. Article 19(1)(a) guarantees the , which extends to films and artistic works. The has consistently held that once a film has been certified by the CBFC under the , courts are generally slow to interfere with its exhibition. The is that of a reasonable, strong-minded viewer, not the most sensitive. In , the Court emphasised that creative works cannot be held hostage to the threat of offence, and the remedy for those who dislike content ordinarily lies in not watching it, not in its suppression.
However, this freedom is not absolute. Article 19(2) permits in the interests of, among other things, . Where a work is alleged to distort historical figures or glorify crime, a court may examine whether it crosses the threshold of permissible expression. In the present case, the petitioner’s grievance is not that the film as a whole is objectionable, but that the specific use of a patriotic song in a gangster context creates a misleading and hurtful association. The will have to weigh this against the certification already granted and the high bar for restraining a certified film.
The CBFC’s Role and Judicial Precedent
The CBFC’s certification process is designed to consider community standards and sensitivities. However, once a film is certified, courts have often deferred to the Board’s expert assessment. In , the held that the CBFC must exercise its powers reasonably and not act as a censor of ideas. Conversely, in , the noted that the right to free speech does not extend to or .
The PIL also seeks directions for framing guidelines for the use of songs associated with historically significant personalities. This raises a broader policy question: should the CBFC or the courts impose specific restrictions on how cultural symbols are used in commercial cinema? The petitioner argues that without such guidelines, the legacy of national icons remains vulnerable to commercial exploitation. The court’s response to this request could have far-reaching implications for the film industry, particularly in how it handles songs and imagery tied to historical figures.
Potential Impact on Legal Practice and the Film Industry
For legal practitioners, this case offers a live example of the tension between constitutional rights and cultural sensitivities. It tests the boundaries of over certified films and the extent to which public sentiment can justify content modification. The outcome may influence how future PILs challenging film content are framed, especially those invoking historical reverence.
The copyright dispute, if it proceeds, will also serve as a reminder to producers to conduct thorough due diligence on music rights, even when songs are publicly available on streaming platforms. The artist’s claim highlights the pitfalls of assuming that a label’s release confers all necessary permissions.
What Lies Ahead
The matter is expected to be listed before the in due course. No date has been fixed yet. The court will first decide whether to entertain the PIL—whether it discloses a sufficient public interest to warrant judicial intervention. If it does, the respondents—including the , the CBFC, and the film’s producers—will be called upon to respond.
In the meantime, Mirzapur: The Movie continues its strong run at the box office, reportedly nearing ₹150 crore in its first week. The commercial success of the film adds another dimension: any judicial restraint on exhibition could have significant economic repercussions, which the court will also consider.
The case is a stark reminder that in the age of OTT-to-cinema crossovers and heightened cultural consciousness, the line between creative liberty and public sentiment is increasingly contested. The ’s handling of this PIL will be watched closely by filmmakers, historians, and constitutional lawyers alike.
