Bengaluru: Actor Ranveer Singh on Saturday tendered an unconditional apology before the Karnataka High Court in connection with a controversy over mimicking a character from the film Kantara: Chapter 1.
The actor submitted a modified affidavit expressing regret over the incident. Taking the affidavit on record, the court indicated that it would proceed to dispose of the matter.
Court records apology, signals closure
The case was heard by a bench headed by Justice M Nagaprasanna. Ranveer Singh had earlier approached the court seeking to quash an FIR registered against him following an event last year, where he allegedly mimicked a character and made remarks linked to a temple deity.
Senior advocate Sajjan Poovayya, appearing for the actor, informed the court that a fresh affidavit with an unconditional apology had been filed. He also submitted that the actor has undertaken to visit the concerned temple and offer prayers.
Religious sentiments highlighted in hearing
On behalf of the complainant, it was argued that the issue was not merely legal but also involved religious sentiments. The court acknowledged this concern, noting that it had earlier refrained from granting a stay on the FIR due to the sensitivity of the matter.
During the hearing, the bench orally observed that it would include in its order a direction for the actor to visit the temple within four weeks.
“We will certainly administer a reprimand,” the court remarked, indicating that while the matter may be closed, a cautionary note would be recorded.
Actor chooses not to contest case
Ranveer Singh’s legal team stated that the actor respects religious beliefs and has therefore chosen not to contest the case on merits. The move to apologise and comply with the court’s directions was presented as a gesture of respect and responsibility.
Earlier, the High Court had emphasised that public figures must exercise caution, observing that fame does not grant the right to hurt religious sentiments.
Conclusion
With the unconditional apology on record and assurances from the actor, the court is expected to formally dispose of the petition. The case underscores the legal and social sensitivities surrounding religious matters and the accountability expected from public figures.
Comments are closed.