New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday directed the makers of Netflix film ‘Ghooskhor Pandit’ to change its title, observing that it is derogatory to a particular community and cannot be allowed under the Constitution.
A bench led by Justice BV Nagarathna issued notice to the respondent filmmakers and asked them to suggest alternative titles.
The court also directed them to file an affidavit detailing the proposed new name and any other changes made in compliance with its order. The matter has been listed for further hearing on February 19.
The court was hearing a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking a stay on the release and screening of the upcoming film, alleging that the title and promotional material promoted caste and religion-based stereotypes and hurt the dignity and religious sentiments of the Brahmin community.
During the hearing, Justice Nagarathna made strong oral comments outlining the constitutional limits on freedom of expression. “Why should you defame anyone. It is against morality and public order. Being woke is one thing. But creating such unrest when the country is already in unrest. We thought that filmmakers, journalists etc. they are all responsible people and know about the exceptions and reasonable restrictions of Article 19(1)(a) (fundamental right of speech and expression).”
Emphasizing the principle of fraternity enshrined in the Constitution, the judge said the makers of the Constitution were conscious of the diversity of India’s races, castes and communities. Justice Nagarathna remarked, “No section of the society should be humiliated. By the late 40s the Constitution makers were aware of the multitude of races, castes etc. So they introduced the concept of fraternity. If you use your freedom to humiliate any section of the society then we cannot allow it.”
The PIL sought a ban on the release of the Manoj Bajpayee starrer film, which was earlier titled ‘Ghooskhor Pandat’, on the grounds that the word ‘Pandat’ was associated with corruption and bribery. The petitioner argued that such usage was defamatory and communally offensive, and lowered the dignity and prestige of the Brahmin community.
The petition was filed by Mahendra Chaturvedi, who describes himself as an acharya dedicated to the study and teaching of Indian scriptures and spiritual traditions. Through advocate Vineet Jindal, the plea argued that the word historically symbolizes scholarship, ethical conduct, spiritual guidance and moral authority, and associating it with immoral conduct amounts to stereotyping and condemnation.
Add Zee News as favorite source
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 material that may disturb communal harmony. It also alleged violation of Articles 14, 21 and 25 of the Constitution and raised concerns over 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 name of the film in view of the concerns. The court later disposed of the petition by observing that the petitioner’s grievance was limited to the title, which was resolved following the decision to adopt an alternative name.