The Delhi High Court Wednesday refused to entertain a public interest petition (PIL) petition seeking modification of the lyrics of the song ‘Maniac’ released by popular singer and rapper, Hirdesh Singh popularly known as Yo Yo Honey Singh [Lavkush Kumar Vs Union Of India & Ors.]

A Division Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela also took objection to the petition which stereotyped Bhojpuri songs as vulgar.

The Court said that vulgarity cannot be identified with any particular region or language.

"Vulgarity has no region. Today you are saying Bhojpuri vulgarity, it should be unqualified. Vulgarity is vulgarity. Tomorrow you will say Delhi vulgarity. Never ever say Bhojpuri vulgar. Obscene is obscene. Have you heard Sharda Sinha?” the Chief Justice remarked. 

The petition was filed by one Lavkush Kumar seeking directions to restrain the sexualisation of women and vulgarity in Bhojpuri songs. 

It was submitted in the petition that the vulgar and sexually explicit content in Bhojpuri songs, as exemplified by the song 'Maniac', has had a significant impact on the State of Bihar where the language is spoekn.

“The song promotes explicit sexualization and uses double entendre, wherein women are depicted solely as objects of sexual desire. Furthermore, the use of Bhojpuri language in the song is alleged to normalize vulgarity, undermining the principles of women’s empowerment. Upon a detailed examination of the song's lyrics, it appears that the words and gestures employed therein are obscene and likely to appeal to the lascivious, salacious, or lustful interests of individuals, potentially depraving and corrupting the minds of youth and other sections of society," the petition stated.

The plea sought directions to regulate the words, expressions and gestures in Bhojpuri songs and to implement reformative measures. 

After considering the plea, the Chief Justice remarked, 

“You can be sued for defamation. Everywhere in the petition, you have said Bhojpuri song. Perhaps you are not aware of the Bhojpuri culture.”

The Court stated that the issue raised in the PIL is not in the realm of public law but under private law, for which other legal remedies can be sought.

“If it is a criminal, cognisable offence then you lodge an FIR, what are you doing here? We cannot issue any writ, you pursue as a private person. The matter is not in the realm of public law. But in the realm of private law, you can file a suit for remedy under civil law.  For obscenity you have recourse under criminal law. Writ petition would not lie,” the Court stated. 

The Court then dismissed the PIL. 

“You take your recourse to the ordinary civil law. institute a suit, seeking retraction of video, seeking injunction against the pursue the YouTuber and initiating criminal proceedings. This petition cannot be entertained,” the Court stated.

The counsel withdrew the petition with liberty to pursue the appropriate remedies.

Accordingly, the petition was disposed. 

The plea was filed through advocate Kumar Utkarsh.

Advocates Ishaan Mukherjee and Sahasradeep Sharma represented Honey Singh.