Recently, the Delhi High Court refused to entertain a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking modification of the lyrics of the song 'Maniac' by popular singer and rapper Hirdesh Singh, known as Yo Yo Honey Singh. The Court observed that allegations of vulgarity cannot be confined to any specific language or region, emphasizing that obscenity is a broader issue beyond linguistic or regional stereotypes.
The petition, filed by Lavkush Kumar, sought restrictions on the portrayal of women and alleged vulgarity in Bhojpuri songs. The petitioner contended that the lyrics of 'Maniac' contained sexually explicit content and double entendres, which not only objectified women but also normalized vulgarity in the Bhojpuri language. It was further argued that such content adversely impacted the State of Bihar, where Bhojpuri is widely spoken, undermining women's empowerment and promoting a culture that corrupts societal morals.
The counsel for the petitioner argued that the song’s lyrics and gestures were obscene, appealing to lascivious or lustful interests, potentially corrupting young minds. The plea sought regulatory measures on the content of Bhojpuri songs, advocating for reforms to prevent the sexualization of women in music videos.
The Court, however, took exception to the generalization of Bhojpuri songs as vulgar and remarked, "Vulgarity has no region. Today you are saying Bhojpuri vulgarity; tomorrow, you may say Delhi vulgarity. Obscene is obscene. Never label an entire language or culture as vulgar." The Chief Justice also cautioned the petitioner, stating that such assertions could invite defamation suits, highlighting the cultural significance of Bhojpuri music.
The Court further observed that the matter did not fall within the purview of public law and, therefore, could not be adjudicated through a writ petition. It clarified that legal remedies exist under private and criminal law for addressing obscenity concerns. "If it is a criminal, cognizable offence, then you may lodge an FIR. Otherwise, you have recourse under civil law. A writ petition would not be maintainable," the Court stated.
Subsequently, the counsel for the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the petition, with liberty to pursue appropriate legal remedies. The Court, allowing the withdrawal, dismissed the petition accordingly.
Picture Source :