Supreme Court pulls up Ghooskhor Pandat makers over ‘casteist’ title: ‘Why denigrate anybody’

The Supreme Court on Thursday directed the makers of the Netflix film Ghooskhor Pandat to change its title, observing that it was denigrative of a particular community and could not be allowed under the Constitution.

A bench headed by Justice BV Nagarathna issued notice to the filmmakers and asked them to propose an alternative title. The Court also directed them to file an affidavit stating the new name and outlining any other changes made to comply with its order. The matter will be heard next on February 19.

PIL challenges film title

The Court was hearing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking a stay on the release and screening of the upcoming film. The plea alleged that the film’s title and promotional material promoted caste- and religion-based stereotyping and hurt the dignity and religious sentiments of the Brahmin community.

The petition objected to the use of the word “Pandat” in association with corruption and bribery, arguing that it amounted to defamation and communal offence.

Court’s remarks on free speech and fraternity

During the hearing, Justice Nagarathna made strong oral observations on the limits of free speech under the Constitution.

"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)," she said.

Emphasising the constitutional value of fraternity, the judge added that the framers of the Constitution were aware of India’s diversity.

"No section of the society should be denigrated. As long as late 40s the framers of Constitution were aware of the multitude of races, castes etc. So they introduced concept of fraternity. If you use your freedom to denigrate any section of the society we can't permit it," Justice Nagarathna observed.

Petitioner's arguments

The PIL was filed by Mahender Chaturvedi, who described himself as an Acharya engaged in the study and teaching of Indian scriptures and spiritual traditions. The plea was filed through Advocate Vineet Jindal.

The petition stated that the term “Pandat” historically represents scholarship, ethical conduct, spiritual guidance and moral authority. Associating it with immoral acts, the petitioner argued, amounted to stereotyping and vilification of the Brahmin community.

It further submitted 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 protect defamatory content or material that could disturb communal harmony. The plea also alleged violations of Articles 14, 21 and 25 of the Constitution and raised concerns over the lack of an effective regulatory framework for OTT platforms.

Delhi High Court informed earlier

Earlier, on February 10, Netflix informed the Delhi High Court that the producer had taken a “conscious decision” to change the film’s title following objections raised.

The High Court subsequently disposed of the petition after recording that the petitioner’s grievance was limited to the title and stood resolved once the decision to adopt a new name was conveyed.

(With inputs from news agency ANI)