'Approach Grievance Cell Under IT Rules 2021': Patna HC Dismisses Actress Nitu Chandra's Plea Against Honey Singh's Song

While dismissing a petition filed by actress Nitu Chandra challenging the broadcast and online circulation of an allegedly vulgar song by singer Honey Singh, the Patna High Court has directed that such grievances must first be addressed through the statutory mechanism established under the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021.

The Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Ashutosh Kumar and Justice Partha Sarthy observed in its judgement, “Mr. Alok Kumar, the learned Advocate for the Central Government has drawn the attention of this Court to various provisions in the IT Act and the Ethics Code Rules, 2021 including the redressal mechanism provided therein for any party to approach the concerned authorities for the needful, i.e. for stoppage of broadcast of such vulgar songs.”

Accordingly, the Court stated that it is for the concerned regulatory authorities to take action under the existing legal framework. The Court directed, “It is thus expected that if such a complaint is made by the petitioner before the Grievance Redressal Cell of the Code Rules of 2021, the authorities concerned shall look into the matter with seriousness and shall act in accordance with law.”

Thus, the petition was disposed of by the High Court.

The actress had approached the High Court seeking legal action against Honey Singh's new song, including directions for its deletion from digital platforms. She contended that the song was “lascivious, salacious and not appropriate in contents to be telecast or displayed in public,” and that it would have a harmful impact on young and impressionable minds. Particularly disturbed by the use of Bhojpuri language to depict women as objects of lust, Chandra argued that such content reinforces an inaccurate and damaging perception of Bhojpuri as a vulgar language.

Previously, the matter was fixed on March 7, 2025, for the passing of an order. However, at the outset, the same Division Bench of the Acting Chief Justice and Justice Sarthy were not inclined to pass any order, and, rather, called the matter felt to be more a publicity interest rather than the public interest. The petitioner's counsel had then intervened, seeking at least a restrictive order from the Court; however, the bench asked her to approach the appropriate regulatory authority.

The Court had refused to pass any order as it wanted to seek the Union's opinion on the matter and matter was listed for a later date.

Case Title: Nitu Chandra vs The Union of India and ors

LL Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 37

Click Here To Read Judgment