The Bombay High Court on November 3, 2026, expressed strong displeasure over the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation’s (BMC) decision to remove actor Dia Mirza’s Diwali anti-pollution awareness video following objections from political representatives.
A bench of Justices Girish Kulkarni and Neela Gokhale asked the civic body to re-upload the video, observing that India is a secular country and that environmental concerns should not be given a communal colour. The video was part of a BMC campaign encouraging citizens to avoid bursting firecrackers on public roads and reduce air and noise pollution.
It was removed after Mumbai BJP president Ameet Satam objected to Mirza’s participation, with Mumbai Mayor Ritu Tawde also criticising the actor. The court referred to the Supreme Court’s October 29 observations on Diwali being celebrated across communities, emphasising that no individual should be excluded from participating in a festival. Meanwhile, Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis said the decision to retain or remove the video rested with the BMC, defending the civic body’s discretion over its social media content.
Court’s Observations
The controversy came before the High Court during proceedings in a suo motu public interest litigation concerning noise and environmental pollution caused by firecrackers. The bench took exception to the manner in which Mirza’s participation in the civic campaign had been criticised, particularly because her message was intended to promote public health and environmental awareness.
The judges observed that the issue was purely environmental and should not be given any other interpretation. Justice Neela Gokhale remarked that everyone breathes the same air, irrespective of religion or caste, and stressed that there was no room for factionalism when public health and pollution were involved.
The bench also questioned how someone could be prevented from participating in a festival because of their religious identity. Referring to the controversy as unfortunate, the court said that Mirza had voluntarily contributed to a public cause and had delivered a message consistent with its earlier directions. It also cautioned against knee-jerk reactions to objections raised by a few individuals.
Asking the BMC to put the video back online, the judges said this would help restore public confidence in the Constitution and society. The bench further observed that Mumbai’s identity rested on togetherness and a strong sense of belonging, which should not be disturbed by irresponsible public comments.
How The Row Began
The BMC had included Mirza, along with actor Madhuri Dixit, actor Nishigandha Wad and cricketer Ajinkya Rahane, in its Diwali awareness campaign. The initiative followed the Bombay High Court’s October 26 directions asking the civic body to involve celebrities, without charging a fee, to spread awareness about the harmful effects of firecrackers. Mirza’s video urged citizens not to burst firecrackers on public roads and highlighted the need to celebrate the festival responsibly.
On November 1, Satam objected to her participation in a post on X, stating that people did not need lessons on celebrating Diwali from the actor and that their traditions were deeply rooted in culture. The BMC subsequently removed her video from its social media accounts, while campaign videos featuring the other celebrities remained available. Satam later said he had not asked the civic body to take down the post, although he questioned Mirza’s suitability for the campaign. Tawde also criticised the actor, alleging that she had consistently taken an anti-Hindu and anti-Hindutva position.
Maharashtra Minister Nitesh Rane questioned why Mirza had made an appeal about an environmentally responsible Diwali but, according to him, had not made similar appeals during other religious occasions. The BMC’s selective removal of the video consequently raised questions about the consistency of its public-awareness campaign and the influence of objections on civic communication. The Supreme Court’s October 29 order in Arjun Gopal v. Union of India also provided important context. While examining firecracker regulation in Delhi-NCR, the apex court observed that Diwali had, over centuries, acquired the character of a national festival celebrated irrespective of caste, community or religion.
It also encouraged celebrities and sportspersons to participate voluntarily in public-awareness campaigns promoting safe and environmentally responsible celebrations. These observations were not about Mirza or the Mumbai controversy, but the Bombay High Court drew upon the Supreme Court’s broader understanding of the festival.
The Logical Indian’s Perspective
The controversy raises an important question about the role of public institutions in protecting inclusive civic spaces. An environmental awareness campaign should be judged by the accuracy and usefulness of its message, not by assumptions about the religious identity or personal views of the person delivering it. Air pollution and the health risks associated with firecrackers do not discriminate between communities.
Children, senior citizens and people with respiratory vulnerabilities bear the consequences regardless of their faith. At the same time, celebrating Diwali and respecting its religious and cultural significance need not be placed in opposition to environmental responsibility. Citizens should be able to preserve traditions while discussing ways to make celebrations safer and less harmful.
The BMC, as a public institution, also has a responsibility to apply its communication policies consistently and explain decisions that affect public-interest campaigns. The Bombay High Court’s observations offer an opportunity to move beyond polarised arguments and recognise that constitutional secularism is not about diminishing anyone’s traditions; it is about ensuring equal participation, mutual respect and coexistence.
Public representatives and civic authorities have a responsibility to encourage constructive dialogue rather than deepen divisions over messages intended to benefit society. Can India celebrate its diverse traditions while coming together on shared concerns such as public health and environmental protection?
