Ranveer Singh goes to Karnataka HC to scrap Kantara 'Daiva' mimicry case

Bollywood actor Ranveer Singh has filed a petition with the Karnataka High Court, seeking to quash a criminal case against him concerning his recent remarks and imitation of the Daiva portrayal from the film Kantara. The case has drawn attention after Singh’s comments were referred to as controversial, which led to legal action against him. The petition was submitted to the court in Bengaluru and is being considered by a bench headed by Justice M Nagaprasanna.

Singh’s legal team argued in court that his intentions were not malicious, claiming his actions stemmed from genuine admiration. In the petition, his counsel stated he was “arguing that his sincere praise for Rishab Shetty’s performance and the film’s characterisation has been unfairly given a criminal colour.”

The defence pointed out that the actor has been under pressure, with police having already issued two official notices in relation to the matter. “The defense emphasised that the actor is facing undue pressure, noting that the police have already issued two notices in connection with the



statement.”

During proceedings, Singh’s lawyers made a request for the court to hear the matter urgently and schedule a same-day hearing, highlighting the ongoing stress on the actor. However, the High Court did not agree to this request. Justice Nagaprasanna questioned the grounds for an expedited hearing, raising concerns about preferential treatment for celebrities.

Justice Nagaprasanna asked whether an enquiry should be fast-tracked simply because the petitioner is a well-known Bollywood actor or whether the court would be expected to move even faster for a Hollywood actor. This line of questioning reflected the court’s commitment to equal treatment under the law, regardless of the individual’s public status.

Despite the defence’s repeated pleas, the court decided to follow its normal procedures and declined to grant an urgent hearing. The official hearing for Singh’s petition has been set for tomorrow, keeping the usual timeline for such cases.

The case continues to generate public and legal interest, with observers awaiting the court’s decision on the matter as scheduled.