The Bombay High Court on Tuesday (July 15) came down strongly on social media influencer Vikas Phatak, popularly known as Hindustani Bhau, for seeking registration of an FIR against filmmaker Farah Khan over allegedly hurtful remarks about the Hindu festival of Holi.

The Court questioned the bona fides of the petition, hinting that it may have been filed for publicity.

A division bench of Justices Ravindra V Ghuge and Gautam Ankhad, while hearing the plea, expressed disapproval at the nature of the petition and orally remarked:

“Why are you so deeply hurt? Stop being so sensitive... We have more than 200 matters listed and you bring such issues to the Court—for what? For publicity? To get your name in the headlines?”

Phatak had sought FIR registration against Farah Khan for allegedly referring to Holi as a "festival of Chhapris" on a television show. The Court, however, questioned how such a remark could cause such deep hurt, particularly if the petitioner did not identify himself with the term.

“She called someone a Chhapri, but you are a gentleman. So why are you offended?” Justice Ghuge observed orally.

Appearing for Phatak, Advocate Ali Kaashif Khan Deshmukh informed the bench that the contentious remark had been removed from the show following a complaint. The Court then asked why the petitioner continued to pursue the issue if corrective action had already been taken.

“So that means, they have taken it down... People have forgotten it now. Why do you want to pursue it? Why didn’t you simply file an FIR yourself instead of first sending a complaint letter through your lawyer?” the bench queried.

As the Court indicated its inclination to dismiss the plea, the petitioner’s counsel sought permission to withdraw the petition, which was allowed.

Before parting with the matter, the bench made a tongue-in-cheek suggestion to the petitioner’s counsel:

“On a lighter note, your client should watch channels like National Geographic or Travel & Living. I can assure you, your client will be very happy after watching such channels.”

The Court also urged the petitioner’s counsel to “bring better causes to the court,” emphasizing the need to prioritize serious matters given the heavy workload on judicial dockets.