The BMC Diwali video dispute has moved from a social-media controversy to a question of civic authority after the Bombay High Court directed the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation to re-upload actor Dia Mirza’s firecracker-awareness video, while Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis dismissed the matter as a “very small issue”.
The video urged citizens not to burst firecrackers on public streets during Diwali. It had been removed from the BMC’s social-media platforms, prompting legal proceedings and scrutiny over how a municipal body manages public communication on its official channels.
Speaking to reporters on Tuesday, Fadnavis said the BMC had the authority to decide what content remained on its social-media accounts. “This is a very small issue. I believe the high court may have expressed its opinion, but the matter has not even gone to the high court. Deleting the video was the Mumbai Municipal Corporation’s decision. The authority that manages the social media handle has the right to decide what content should be retained and what should be removed,” he said.
The chief minister also said Mirza was not a major political figure and that the issue was not at his level. His comments came a day after the high court directed the civic body to upload the video again. A bench comprising Justice Girish Kulkarni and Justice Neela Gokhale expressed displeasure during the hearing over remarks made by certain political leaders about the actor’s video.
The dispute centres on the responsibilities attached to an official civic communication platform. The BMC’s social-media accounts are used to communicate with residents, and the video was framed as a public appeal concerning the use of firecrackers on public streets. The court’s direction places the removal of that communication under judicial scrutiny, while the chief minister’s remarks emphasise the municipal authority’s control over its own digital channels.
The matter also illustrates how public messaging by urban local bodies can become contested when it intersects with festivals, public-space use and political reaction. In this case, the supplied report does not establish the reason given by the BMC for initially removing the video, whether the video was re-uploaded after the court’s direction, or what further order the court may issue.
The immediate issue is therefore not only the video itself, but also the limits and accountability of municipal discretion over official public-information platforms. The high court has directed the BMC to restore the appeal, while the state government’s position, as expressed by Fadnavis, is that the civic body retains the authority to decide what appears on its social-media handle. Further developments will depend on the BMC’s compliance and the continuation of the court proceedings.
