Amid the ongoing controversy around Manoj Bajpayee`s upcoming film Ghooskhor Pandat, the Supreme Court, on Thursday, ordered the makers of the Netflix film to change its title. The court observed that it was denigrative of a particular community and hence could not be permitted under the Constitution.
Supreme Court orders makers to change the name of Ghooskhor Pandat
A bench led by Justice BV Nagarathna issued notice to the respondent filmmakers asking them to suggest an alternative title. The Court also directed the makers to file an affidavit indicating the proposed new name while also detailing any other changes made in compliance with its order. The matter has now been listed for further hearing on February 19.
The notice was issued during the hearing of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking a stay on the release and screening of the film, claiming that the title and promotional material promoted caste- and religion-based stereotyping. Additionally, the PIL noted that it hurt the dignity and religious sentiments of the Brahmin community.
During the hearing, Justice Nagarathna oral criticised the makers, underscoring constitutional limitations on free speech, saying, “Why should you denigrate anybody. It`s against morality and public order. Being woke is one thing. But creating this kind of unrest when there is already unrest in the country. We thought filmmakers, journalists etc. they are all responsible people and are aware of exceptions and reasonable restrictions of Article 19(1)(a) (Fundamental Right of Speech and Expression).”
“No section of society should be denigrated. As long as the late 40s, the framers of the Constitution were aware of the multitude of races, castes etc. So they introduced the concept of fraternity. If you use your freedom to denigrate any section of society, we can`t permit it,” Justice Nagarathna added.
About the Ghooskhor Pandat row
The PIL had sought to restrain the release of the Manoj Bajpayee-starrer, earlier titled `Ghooskhor Pandat,` on the ground that the term `Pandat` was being associated with corruption and bribery. The petitioner argued that such usage was defamatory and communally offensive, and that it undermined the dignity and reputation of the Brahmin community.
The plea was filed by Mahender Chaturvedi, who describes himself as an Acharya devoted to the study and teaching of Indian scriptures and spiritual traditions. Through Advocate Vineet Jindal, the petition contended that the term historically signifies scholarship, ethical conduct, spiritual guidance and moral authority, and that linking it with immoral conduct amounted to stereotyping and vilification.
The petition further argued that while Article 19(1)(a) guarantees freedom of speech and expression, it is subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2) and does not extend to defamation or content that may disturb communal harmony. It also alleged violations of Articles 14, 21 and 25 of the Constitution and raised concerns about the absence of an effective regulatory mechanism for OTT platforms.
Earlier, on February 10, the Delhi High Court was informed by Netflix that the producer had taken a “conscious decision” to change the film`s name in light of concerns raised. The Court subsequently disposed of the petition after noting that the petitioner`s grievance was confined to the title, which stood resolved following the decision to adopt an alternate name.
(With inputs from ANI)
