Karnataka HC Criticises Over Ranveer Singh’s ‘Kantara’ Mimicry, Court’s Fiery Rebuke Stuns Fans

The Karnataka High Court recently expressed strong dissatisfaction with Bollywood actor Ranveer Singh regarding his controversial mimicry and comments concerning the film Kantara.

The court established through its February 24, 2026, court hearing that celebrity status does not allow people to discuss protected cultural traditions without restriction.

The legal investigation started because Singh used the term “female ghost” to describe a sacred Daiva and performed an imitation of the religious possession scene, which resulted in an FIR being filed against him for allegedly offending religious believers.

Ranveer Singh: Religious Sentiments and Influential Responsibility

The court established that public figures must fulfill increased obligations because their substantial public influence increases their responsibility.

Justice M. Nagaprasanna stated in a public statement that the entertainment industry uses mimicry and artistic expression as common practices, but these practices cannot serve as an excuse to show disrespect toward a community’s fundamental religious beliefs.

The bench established that the Bhoota Kola tradition shown in Kantara functions as a sacred ritual that Coastal Karnataka people perform but exists beyond cinematic representation.

The actor disrespected these traditions when he presented them at an international event because he did not show the required caution that his professional position demanded despite his main goal of praising the film’s lead actor.

Legal Accountability and Uniform Judicial Process

The Karnataka High Court maintained that all citizens must receive equal treatment under legal procedures because the court lacks authority to provide special treatment for famous individuals. Singh had approached the court to quash the criminal case, with his legal team arguing that his remarks were purely an appreciative gesture toward Rishab Shetty’s performance.

The court maintained that public statements that people have made cannot be eliminated from existence through an apology. The court provided provisional relief by prohibiting the state from using forceful measures until the upcoming hearing, but it required complete fact disclosure to establish that all actors must meet the same accountability standards when their traditions face potential mockery.

Also Read: Why Did Neil Nitin Mukesh Walk Out Of The Universal Idol Singing Show? Actor Drops Bombshell, Exits As Brand Ambassador Over Explosive Non-Payment Showdown