Kailash Kher Cleared in ‘Babam Bam’ Controversy as Bombay High Court Slams Intolerance

The Bombay High Court has ruled in favour of singer Kailash Kher, dismissing a long-standing complaint that accused him of hurting religious sentiments with his song Babam Bam. The song, dedicated to Lord Shiva, was released in 2007 as part of his album Kailasa Jhoomo Re. The court, in its judgment dated March 4, 2025, and made public recently, stated that there was no deliberate intent to offend anyone’s religious beliefs.

The controversy began in 2014 when Narinder Makkar, a self-proclaimed devotee of Lord Shiva, filed a complaint in a Ludhiana court. He claimed that the song’s video featured “scantily dressed women” and “objectionable scenes”, which he found offensive. Makkar sought legal action under Sections 295A and 298 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which deal with acts intended to outrage religious sentiments.

However, the Bombay High Court ruled that the lyrics of the song were nothing but praise for Lord Shiva and did not meet the legal criteria for a criminal offense. The court observed, “Every action which may be disliked by some people does not necessarily mean it outrages religious sentiments.”

Following the 2014 complaint, a court in Ludhiana issued bailable warrants against Kailash Kher for not appearing. This led him to approach the Bombay High Court, which granted interim relief, preventing any coercive action against him. This protection remained in place until the final verdict.

Kher’s lawyer, Ashok Sarogi, argued that the singer had no involvement in the video’s choreography or direction, which was managed by Sony Music Entertainment. The court acknowledged this, stating, “The petitioner is merely a singer and had no role in the video’s making.” Additionally, the video had been cleared by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC), reinforcing that it was not meant to be offensive.

The court used this case to highlight the importance of tolerance in society. Quoting A.G. Noorani, the bench remarked, “Intolerance has been a bane of Indian society for centuries. A free society is one that accepts the right to dissent.”

The ruling also pointed out procedural lapses, noting that prosecution under IPC Section 295A requires prior government sanction, which was not obtained in this case. This oversight further justified dismissing the complaint. With this verdict, Kailash Kher has been cleared of all accusations, bringing an end to the legal battle that lasted over a decade.