'Publicity Interest', Patna High Court Refuses To Pass Order In PIL Against Honey Singh's Song, Seeks Union's Response

Update: 2025-03-07 06:18 GMT
Click the Play button to listen to article
story

The Patna High Court today (March 7) heard a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by actress Nitu Chandra against the alleged vulgarity in renowned singer Yo Yo Honey Singh's latest chartbuster song 'Maniac'. The actress had approached the High Court seeking legal action against Honey Singh's new song, including the deletion of the song.Today, the matter was fixed for the passing of an...

Your free access to Live Law has expired
Please Subscribe for unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments, Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.

The Patna High Court today (March 7) heard a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by actress Nitu Chandra against the alleged vulgarity in renowned singer Yo Yo Honey Singh's latest chartbuster song 'Maniac'.

The actress had approached the High Court seeking legal action against Honey Singh's new song, including the deletion of the song.

Today, the matter was fixed for the passing of an order; however, at the outset, the division bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Ashutosh Kumar and Justice Partha Sarhty was not inclined to pass any order; rather, it called the matter felt to be more a publicity interest rather than the public interest

Petitioner's counsel submitted that the new song carries obscene and vulgar language, normalizing vulgarity in Bhojpuri song and throws "women's empowerment out of the window". She further stated that the new song failed to meet the famous test of obscenity developed in the case of Regina v. Hicklin, popularly known as the "Hicklin test".

However, the bench seemed unconvinced and asked the petitioner to approach the appropriate authority, complaining about the alleged vulgarity and obscenity in the song.

"I am sure that you might not be liking the song, but you have the option to go to the appropriate authority...If the authority provides you a forum to agitate, you can go, you ask for the restraining order...why do we entertain?" the Court orally remarked.

"Why do you want to convert it into a publicity interest, instead of public interest? It would be injurious to public opinion, you must approach the appropriate forum", the court added.

The petitioner's counsel intervened and sought at least a restrictive order from the Court; however, the bench asked her to approach the appropriate regulatory authority. 

The Court refused to pass any order today as it wanted to seek the Union's opinion on the matter.

The matter is next directed to be listed on March 28, 2025.

Case Title: NITU CHANDRA Vs. THE UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

Tags:    

Similar News