Ranveer Singh Slammed by Karnataka HC Over ‘Kantara’ Remarks

February 24, 2026

Bollywood actor Ranveer Singh is embroiled in a legal controversy in Karnataka after remarks he made at a public event triggered allegations that he hurt religious sentiments tied to the film Kantara: A Legend – Chapter 1. The matter reached the Karnataka High Court, which on February 24, 2026, granted him interim relief by directing police not to take any coercive action against him until the next hearing on March 2, provided he cooperates with the ongoing investigation.

The controversy originated from Singh’s participation in an event widely reported to be the 56th International Film Festival of India (IFFI) in Goa — where he praised Kantara and then imitated the portrayal of a deity (Daiva) from the film. Some sections of the public interpreted his remarks, including referring to the deity as a “ghost,” as insensitive, leading to a formal complaint and subsequent legal action.

What the Court Heard

Ranveer Singh approached the Karnataka High Court challenging the First Information Report (FIR) registered against him at the High Grounds Police Station in Bengaluru, which alleges that his comments hurt religious feelings and promoted enmity between communities. His legal team argued in court that his mimicry was meant as a tribute to Rishab Shetty’s performance in the film and not intended to offend any community or belief system.

During the hearing, the court noted that celebrities with wide public influence have a heightened responsibility to avoid statements that could hurt sentiments. Justice M. Nagaprasanna, presiding over the matter, reprimanded the actor, saying that being a popular figure does not give one licensee to hurt religious sentiments even unintentionally. “You may be Ranveer Singh or anybody. You can’t be loose-tongued,” the court remarked, emphasizing that public figures must exercise restraint and be mindful of cultural sensitivities.

Interim Relief and Court Direction

While the court did criticize the remarks, it temporarily restrained police from arresting Ranveer or taking any coercive step against him until the next scheduled hearing on March 2, 2026. This relief was granted on the condition that the actor cooperates fully with the investigation and does not evade legal obligations.

The court also directed the State to file its objections and responses ahead of the next hearing. The interim order ensures that the matter will be heard further before any punitive action is taken.

Background: FIR and Allegations

The FIR was registered on January 28, 2026, after a private complaint was filed by Advocate Prashanth Methal in Bengaluru. The complaint said that Singh’s remarks during the Kantara mimicry “demeaned” the sacred Chavundi Daiva tradition a deeply revered cultural and spiritual element in coastal Karnataka and encouraged the High Grounds Police to investigate under provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

The FIR includes sections related to promoting disunity, malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings and other provisions that could attract legal penalties including imprisonment or fines. Singh’s legal petition argues that the remarks lacked criminal intent and were misinterpreted in context.

Public and Industry Reactions

The case has sparked intense debate across social media, news platforms and Bollywood circles on free expression versus cultural sensitivity. Some critics argue that celebrities must exercise caution when referencing religious or cultural practices, while others see legal action in such cases as overly punitive and harmful to artistic freedom.

Ranveer Singh earlier issued a public apology, stating his intention was to praise the performance in Kantara and never to disparage any beliefs or traditions. He said he respects all cultures and traditions and regretted any hurt caused.

What Happens Next

The matter is now listed for a detailed hearing on March 2, 2026, when the Karnataka High Court is expected to hear arguments from both sides including objections from the State and the complainant before deciding whether to quash the FIR. Meanwhile, the interim relief ensures that no coercive legal action will be taken against the actor until the court reaches a decision.

This case highlights the delicate balance between public expression, religious sentiment and the law in India, particularly when high-profile personalities are involved in controversies that resonate with cultural sensibilities.