Mirzapur: The Movie Release Challenged Before Allahabad HC Over Alleged Derogatory Portrayal, Violence, Obscenity

A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has been filed before the Allahabad High Court seeking directions to restrain the release of “Mirzapur: The Movie”, scheduled for theatrical release on September 4, 2026, unless alleged derogatory references to Mirzapur, violence and obscene content are removed.

The petition, filed by Advocate Shalu Pandey before the Lucknow Bench, has made the Union Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC), Excel Entertainment Pvt Ltd and Amazon Seller Services Pvt Ltd, which operates Prime Video, respondents.

In an accompanying application for interim relief, Pandey has sought a direction to the respondents, particularly fourth respondent Amazon Seller Services Pvt. Ltd. (Prime Video), to defer the theatrical release and remove the alleged derogatory references to Mirzapur, explicit violence and obscenity during the pendency of the petition.

What has the petitioner alleged?

The plea claims that the film exploits the geographical identity of Mirzapur and portrays the district and Uttar Pradesh in a manner that amounts to “derogatory” representation and causes reputational harm to local residents.

The petitioner has also referred to earlier seasons of the “Mirzapur” web series, alleging that they contained profanity, sexual perversion and “grotesque violence”. She has invoked Sections 294 and 295 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, in support of her objections.

The petition further claims that Mirzapur has a distinct geographical, cultural and religious identity, referring specifically to Vindhyavasini Dham (Shakti Peeth) and GI-tagged carpet and brass handicrafts. According to the petitioner, replacing this identity with a depiction associated with systematic criminality causes “severe psychological humiliation” to local residents.

The plea also alleges that the film contains scenes involving abuse and sexuality and that its release in the original form would have an adverse effect on society and the residents of Uttar Pradesh.

What constitutional grounds has the plea raised?

The petitioner has invoked Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, arguing that freedom of speech and expression is subject to constitutionally permissible restrictions under Article 19(2), including on grounds of decency and morality.

She has also invoked Article 21, contending that the alleged portrayal affects the dignity and personal liberty of the petitioner and women. The petition cites the Supreme Court's proceedings concerning the web series “Tandav” in Aparna Purohit v State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., stating that similar grievances concerning web-series content are pending consideration before the apex court.

Another ground raised is Article 39(f), which the petitioner says reflects a constitutional concern for protecting children against exploitation and moral and material abandonment. She argues that exposure to hyper-violent media can adversely affect minors.

What relief has been sought?

The principal prayer is for a mandamus directing the CBFC to refuse or withhold the exhibition certificate for “Mirzapur: The Movie” until the alleged objectionable references to Mirzapur, explicit violence and obscenity are removed.

The petitioner has also sought directions to the Union Ministry of Information and Broadcasting to frame regulatory guidelines aimed at preventing commercial territorial defamation and protecting the public morality of local residents of Mirzapur.

Before approaching the high court, Pandey says she sent a legal notice to the Ministry on July 25, 2026. The Ministry subsequently issued a communication dated August 10, 2026, which has been annexed to the petition.

The petition also annexes screenshots and photographs of allegedly objectionable portions of the series and correspondence from Prime Video responding to the petitioner's complaint.

Prime Video, in its response, described the series as fictional and said that it carried content descriptors, disclaimers and viewer advisories.