The Bombay High Court on Tuesday delivered a sharp rebuke to political leaders who had attacked actor Dia Mirza over a civic awareness video on firecrackers, reminding them in plain terms that India is a secular country and that a festival belongs to everyone.
A Division Bench of Justice Girish Kulkarni and Justice Dr Neela Gokhale said it was disturbed by what it called stray comments made by some politicians, and directed the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation to put the deleted video back on its social media accounts.
The controversy began with a short video in which Mirza urged Mumbaikars not to burst firecrackers on public streets. The clip was made at the civic body's request as part of a public awareness campaign linked to the court's own directions on firecracker use in public spaces. It was meant to draw attention to noise and air pollution during the festive season.
After some leaders of the Bharatiya Janata Party objected to the video and described the actor as anti-Hindu, the civic body took the clip down from its social media handle.
The court took up the matter while hearing its suo motu public interest litigation on festive noise and air pollution in Mumbai. The judges made it clear that they viewed the episode as an environmental issue, not a religious one, and that the political reaction had missed the point entirely. Justice Kulkarni observed that the politicians had spoken without taking note of the court's earlier order, which had permitted everyone to take part in the awareness initiative.
Mirza, the court said, had acted entirely in accordance with the court's directions.
"A festival is for everyone to celebrate. No individual can be isolated from celebrating any festival in this country. How can you object to someone's participation just because that person is from some other religion? Aren't we a secular country?" the Bench observed orally during the hearing. The judges added that the actor had delivered a really good message on air pollution, and that the objections which followed were really unfortunate.
Justice Gokhale stressed that the matter was purely an environmental question and should not be given any other colour. "Everyone is breathing the same air, be it anyone," she observed. She added that asking people not to burst firecrackers on public streets did not take away anyone's right to celebrate the festival. The court said the approach adopted by some corporators and politicians was not correct, and that they should not give the issue any other angle.
The judges also referred to an observation of the Supreme Court that Diwali is celebrated by everyone irrespective of caste or religion. On that footing, the Bench questioned how anyone could object to Mirza's participation on religious grounds. The court said there was no need for a knee-jerk reaction, and directed the civic body to re-upload the video and restore the confidence of the people.
The political row had escalated quickly over the weekend. BJP Mumbai president Ameet Satam had publicly questioned the civic body's decision to feature Mirza in its campaign. In a post on November 1, he tagged the civic body and the actor and wrote that the city did not need lessons on how to celebrate Diwali from her, adding that the festival's traditions were deeply rooted in culture.
BJP MLA Sanjay Upadhyay also criticised the campaign, accusing film personalities of repeatedly raising concerns about Hindu festivals. Mumbai Mayor Ritu Tawde claimed that Mirza had always taken an anti-Hindu and anti-government stand, while Maharashtra minister Nitesh Rane questioned the civic body's decision to promote someone like her and said he would take up the issue with the Chief Minister so that such things could be prevented in the future.
The court was unimpressed by the tenor of that debate. It said the objections reflected the views of only a few people and should be avoided. "When we are speaking about health and pollution and environment, there is no room for factionalism," the Bench said.
It added that the matter should conclude on a happy note and in a sense of belongingness, particularly in Mumbai, which it said survives on togetherness and a strong feeling of belongingness. "This balance ought not to be disturbed by any loose comment," the judges said.
The episode sits within a longer-running judicial effort to control festive pollution in the city. In the same suo motu case, the Bench has extended its ban on bursting firecrackers on public streets to all festivals through the year. It has asked the police to frame a standard operating procedure for enforcement, so that the restriction is applied consistently rather than selectively.
The court has also said that public money should not be spent on celebrities for anti-firecracker campaigns, with the Police Commissioner instead inviting them to take part voluntarily. Mirza's video was part of that voluntary awareness effort, which is why the court treated the objections to it as particularly misplaced.
The row also arrives at a sensitive moment in the festive calendar. Diwali celebrations bring an annual spike in air and noise pollution in Indian cities, and courts across the country have wrestled for years with how to balance celebration with public health. The Supreme Court has itself allowed green crackers in Delhi-NCR for Diwali on November 7 and 8 this year, a decision that underlines how the judiciary has tried to steer a middle course rather than impose blanket bans.
Against that backdrop, the Bombay High Court's message was that the debate should stay focused on health and the environment, and not be turned into a test of anyone's faith or identity.
For the civic body, the direction leaves little room for ambiguity. The video must go back up, and the episode should serve as a reminder that awareness campaigns run under court directions cannot be pulled down because a few voices object to the messenger. For the wider public debate, the court's words carry a broader significance.
By asking, in open court, how participation in a festival could be denied to someone because of their religion, the judges restated a constitutional principle that often gets lost in the noise of festive-season politics.
The court closed the hearing on a conciliatory note, urging that the matter end in a spirit of belongingness. Whether the political temperature around the video cools now will depend on how the leaders who raised the objections respond to the court's direction. What is settled, for the moment, is the video's fate: it returns to the civic body's social media accounts, and the message it carries about cleaner, quieter streets stands as the court intended.
(Reporting based on Live Law, The Statesman and The Week.)