The petition wanted a song removed; the producer had, in the meantime, already offered the censor board to replace it. That turned a contentious free-speech dispute into something narrower. The Delhi High Court declined to sit in judgment on a work of art, pointed the petitioner to the competent authority, and asked the CBFC to decide the producer’s own modification proposal within a week, observing that if the makers are themselves replacing the song, the purpose of the petition is served. It did, orally, register some disquiet.
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has directed the Central Board of Film Certification to decide within a week on a proposal by the makers of Mirzapur: The Movie to replace the song ‘Shoorveer’ in the film’s climax with background music, while hearing a public interest litigation seeking the song’s removal [Prashant Kumar Singh v. Union of India and Others].
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia heard the matter and adjourned it for a week, directing that the decision on the proposed modification be taken in the meantime.
The petition
The PIL, filed by one Prashant Kumar Singh, objects to the use of the ‘Shoorveer’ track, said to have been originally composed as a tribute to the historical figure Maharana Pratap, over scenes in the film involving fictional gangsters. The petitioner contends that using a song dedicated to a national hero as the backdrop to cinematic criminals distorts its cultural context and hurts the country’s cultural legacy, creating a misleading association in public memory between the legacy of Maharana Pratap and fictitious gangsters.
Besides seeking the removal or replacement of the track from the climax, the petition asks the Court to frame guidelines for the use of songs associated with historically or culturally significant personalities, so that their use in films does not create an undesirable or misleading association with criminal or anti-social conduct, while balancing the freedom of artistic and creative expression.
The producer’s position and the modification
Counsel for the film’s producer submitted that the song was used during a climax sequence depicting a fight between two factions, that it had nothing to do with any comparison with Maharana Pratap, and that the song was not being sung in the sequence.
Counsel for the CBFC informed the Court that, under Rule 31 of the Cinematograph (Certification) Rules, 2024, the producer had submitted a Form III proposing certain modifications to the film, including the replacement of the song with background music, and that a decision on the proposed modification would be taken within a week.
That, in the Court’s view, largely resolved the dispute. It observed that if the makers were themselves modifying the song with background music, the purpose of filing the petition was fulfilled and the matter was resolved. When the petitioner’s counsel pointed out that the film would be available on OTT platforms within four weeks and the PIL could become infructuous, the Court noted that the production house had itself approached the CBFC regarding the modifications.
The Court’s oral observations
While declining to go into the merits, the Bench did register a prima facie unease. It observed orally that the use of the song did not, on the face of it, appear to be “in good taste”, and remarked:
“We have come to a situation where we are revering violence?”
The Court was, however, careful to confine itself. It clarified that it was refraining from making any observations on the merits of the petition, and suggested that the petitioner approach the Central Government, observing that an issue concerning a work of art could be better examined by the competent authority. These oral remarks are not findings, and the Court expressly kept the merits open.
ALSO READ: The Kerala Story 2 Row: Kerala High Court Stays Release Of Movie, Orders CBFC Review
Why it matters
The order is a study in how a constitutional court handles a content dispute it would rather not decide. Petitions seeking the removal or alteration of a scene, song or line from a film raise the perennial tension between artistic freedom under Article 19(1)(a) and claims of offence to cultural or religious sentiment, and courts have generally been wary of stepping into the role of censor, a function the statute assigns to the CBFC. The Delhi High Court’s instinct here, to point the petitioner to the competent authority and to let the certification process run, reflects that reluctance.
What made the case easy to dispose of was that the producer had already moved the CBFC with a modification proposal that would give the petitioner substantially what he sought. That converted a potential free-speech confrontation into a routine certification question: the Court did not have to decide whether the song’s use was lawful or whether guidelines were needed, because the statutory mechanism under the 2024 Certification Rules was already seized of the very change demanded. Directing the CBFC to decide within a week simply held that process to a timeline.
The Court’s oral aside, its discomfort at what it framed as the reverence of violence, will draw attention, but it should be read for what it is: a passing observation, expressly divorced from the merits, by judges who went on to decline to rule on those merits. It signals a sentiment, not a legal standard, and the broader relief the petition seeks, court-framed guidelines on the use of culturally significant songs in cinema, remains undecided and, given the Court’s deference to the competent authority, may not be granted at all. For now, the practical outcome turns entirely on what the CBFC decides on the producer’s own proposal within the week.
Case Title: Prashant Kumar Singh v. Union of India and Others
Bench: Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia, High Court of Delhi
Appearances: Advocates Shashank and Shashwat for the petitioner; counsel for the producer and for the CBFC.
Status: Matter adjourned for a week. CBFC directed to decide the producer’s modification proposal within a week. No opinion expressed on the merits.
