The Delhi High Court, on March 26, refused to entertain a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed against singer Honey Singh’s latest song, Maniac. The petition claimed that the song portrays women as "sexual objects" and contains vulgar lyrics.
A division bench, consisting of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, dismissed the PIL and advised the litigant, Lavkush Kumar, to explore civil or criminal legal remedies available under the law.
Kumar’s counsel argued that certain lyrics in the song were highly objectionable, and the song contained elements of "Bhojpuri vulgarity." In response, Chief Justice Upadhyaya remarked:
“Vulgarity does not have a region. You say Bhojpuri vulgarity. What is this? Tomorrow you'll say Delhi is vulgar. Vulgarity is vulgarity. No region.”
Read Also: Delhi High Court Rules on Anti-Dumping Duties: Judicial Intervention Limited Due to Time Constraints
The petitioner also pointed out that the song had gained millions of views on YouTube, urging the court to take action against it. However, the court clarified that if the petitioner believed the song promoted vulgarity and obscenity, he could file an FIR if the alleged offence was cognizable under the law.
“If there is an offence and it is cognizable, then please lodge a complaint or FIR. If it is not lodged, you know the procedure,” the Court advised.
The court also made it clear that it could not issue a writ in this matter, as writs are generally issued against the state or public authorities. Since the case pertained to a private dispute regarding content perceived as obscene, the petitioner was directed to follow legal procedures under criminal or civil law.
“You want us to redact that video. We are afraid we cannot issue a writ on this. Writs are issued generally against the State or State instrumentalities or any other body performing public function. Your matter is not in public law. It is in private law. If you are hurt from obscenity, then there is a remedy under the criminal law system. Lodge an FIR or a complaint,” Chief Justice stated.
Read Also: Delhi High Court Seeks Response on Plea Against BJP Leader Parvesh Verma’s Election Victory
Further, the court rejected the petitioner's repeated reference to Bhojpuri songs, cautioning against unfair generalizations.
“Everywhere you have said Bhojpuri songs. You cannot justify this. Perhaps you are not aware of the Bhojpuri culture and Bhojpuri songs. Don't do this.… This does not lie in the realm of public law. Therefore, we won’t entertain it. You take recourse of criminal and civil laws,” the Chief Justice emphasized.
Following the court’s observations, the petitioner withdrew the PIL, with the liberty to pursue remedies under both civil and criminal law.
“The petition is dismissed with the liberty as prayed for,” the Court concluded.
Read Also: Delhi High Court Awards ₹34.41 Lakh To Bridgestone In Trademark Infringement Case
Title: Lavkush Kumar v. Union of India & Ors.
