Ranveer Singh mimicry row settled, K’taka HC accepts apology
Advertisement
Bengaluru, April 25 : The Karnataka High Court on Saturday accepted an undertaking by Bollywood actor Ranveer Singh, known for his role in ‘Durandhar’, to visit the Chamundeshwari Temple in Mysuru and tender an apology for his mimicry of a deity depicted in the film Kantara Chapter-2.
Meanwhile, the complainant and advocate Prashant Methal stated in Bengaluru that the matter has been settled and that the court will issue an order in this regard soon.
The bench, headed by Justice M. Nagaprasanna, accepted Ranveer Singh’s undertaking to make amends for his mimicry of the temple deity’s depiction in the film.
The court observed that it would pass a formal order after recording the actor’s apology and indicated that it may direct him to visit the temple within four weeks.
Senior counsel Sajjan Poovayya, appearing for Ranveer Singh, submitted that the actor had filed a revised affidavit offering an unconditional apology.
He also stated that Ranveer Singh would visit Chamundi Hill and tender his apology for the act of mimicry.
Speaking to the media at the Bengaluru Police Commissioner’s office, the complainant, advocate Prashant Methal, said that the Ranveer Singh case had been settled.
He said that arguments were heard on the affidavit submitted to the court, which stated that the actor would visit Chamundi Hill in Mysuru “in due course”.
He added that they had raised arguments on what “due course” implies, whether it is 15 days, 30 days, one year, or even 10 years.
The actor’s counsel submitted that, due to security concerns, a specific timeline could not be provided.
After Durandhar 1 and 2, there appears to be a need for enhanced security.
Methal said they expressed confidence in the Karnataka Police, who can provide foolproof security when the actor visits.
He further stated that the bench agreed with this position.
The affidavit has been filed, stating that he will come soon and apologise before the goddess.
He added that forgiveness is a fundamental principle of all religions.
Since he has tendered an apology, no further punishment is necessary.
He said it is appropriate to end the matter here and that it would not be proper to continue.
It can be recalled that the controversy, often referred to as the “Kantara mimicry row”, arose from an incident during the 55th International Film Festival of India (IFFI) in Goa on November 28, 2025, where Ranveer referred to the sacred Chamundi deity as a “female ghost” and mimicked a scene from the film Kantara Chapter-1.
A Bengaluru-based advocate, Prashanth Methal, filed a complaint alleging that Ranveer’s mimicry of the Panjurli/Guliga Daiva (revered divine spirits in Coastal Karnataka) was crude, derogatory, and blasphemous.
A First Information Report was registered against Ranveer under Sections 196 (promoting enmity between groups), 299 (outraging religious feelings), and 302 (intentional insult) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
The Karnataka High Court, specifically Justice M. Nagaprasanna, pulled up the actor for being “reckless and insensitive” and emphasised that public figures must be responsible, noting that “freedom of expression does not excuse casual or uninformed remarks about matters of faith”.
Meanwhile, the complainant and advocate Prashant Methal stated in Bengaluru that the matter has been settled and that the court will issue an order in this regard soon.
The bench, headed by Justice M. Nagaprasanna, accepted Ranveer Singh’s undertaking to make amends for his mimicry of the temple deity’s depiction in the film.
The court observed that it would pass a formal order after recording the actor’s apology and indicated that it may direct him to visit the temple within four weeks.
Senior counsel Sajjan Poovayya, appearing for Ranveer Singh, submitted that the actor had filed a revised affidavit offering an unconditional apology.
He also stated that Ranveer Singh would visit Chamundi Hill and tender his apology for the act of mimicry.
Speaking to the media at the Bengaluru Police Commissioner’s office, the complainant, advocate Prashant Methal, said that the Ranveer Singh case had been settled.
He said that arguments were heard on the affidavit submitted to the court, which stated that the actor would visit Chamundi Hill in Mysuru “in due course”.
He added that they had raised arguments on what “due course” implies, whether it is 15 days, 30 days, one year, or even 10 years.
The actor’s counsel submitted that, due to security concerns, a specific timeline could not be provided.
After Durandhar 1 and 2, there appears to be a need for enhanced security.
Methal said they expressed confidence in the Karnataka Police, who can provide foolproof security when the actor visits.
He further stated that the bench agreed with this position.
The affidavit has been filed, stating that he will come soon and apologise before the goddess.
He added that forgiveness is a fundamental principle of all religions.
Since he has tendered an apology, no further punishment is necessary.
He said it is appropriate to end the matter here and that it would not be proper to continue.
It can be recalled that the controversy, often referred to as the “Kantara mimicry row”, arose from an incident during the 55th International Film Festival of India (IFFI) in Goa on November 28, 2025, where Ranveer referred to the sacred Chamundi deity as a “female ghost” and mimicked a scene from the film Kantara Chapter-1.
A Bengaluru-based advocate, Prashanth Methal, filed a complaint alleging that Ranveer’s mimicry of the Panjurli/Guliga Daiva (revered divine spirits in Coastal Karnataka) was crude, derogatory, and blasphemous.
A First Information Report was registered against Ranveer under Sections 196 (promoting enmity between groups), 299 (outraging religious feelings), and 302 (intentional insult) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
The Karnataka High Court, specifically Justice M. Nagaprasanna, pulled up the actor for being “reckless and insensitive” and emphasised that public figures must be responsible, noting that “freedom of expression does not excuse casual or uninformed remarks about matters of faith”.
Advertisement
Note: The content of this article is sourced from a news agency and has not been edited by the ap7am team.