In light of the controversy surrounding Manoj Bajpayee’s upcoming film, Ghooskhor Pandat, the Supreme Court has mandated a title change. The court deemed the original title derogatory towards a specific community, which is not permissible under constitutional guidelines.
A bench headed by Justice BV Nagarathna instructed the filmmakers to propose a new title and submit an affidavit detailing any adjustments made in accordance with the court’s order. This matter is set for further consideration on February 19.
The directive came during a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that aimed to halt the film’s release, asserting that its title and promotional content perpetuated caste and religious stereotypes, thereby offending the dignity and sentiments of the Brahmin community.
Justice Nagarathna expressed her disapproval of the filmmakers’ choices, emphasizing the constitutional boundaries of free speech. She remarked, “Why should you denigrate anyone? It contradicts morality and public order. While being socially aware is important, inciting unrest is not acceptable, especially in a tense climate. It is expected that filmmakers and journalists understand the reasonable restrictions outlined in Article 19(1)(a) regarding freedom of speech.”
She further stated, “No group should be insulted. The framers of the Constitution recognized the diversity of races and castes, hence the concept of fraternity was introduced. Using your freedom to demean any community is unacceptable.”
Context of the Ghooskhor Pandat Debate
The PIL sought to prevent the release of the film, arguing that associating the term ‘Pandat’ with corruption and bribery was defamatory and damaging to the Brahmin community’s reputation. The petitioner, Mahender Chaturvedi, an Acharya dedicated to the study of Indian scriptures, emphasized that ‘Pandat’ historically connoted scholarship and moral authority, and linking it to unethical behavior amounted to harmful stereotyping.
The petition claimed that while Article 19(1)(a) ensures freedom of expression, it is subject to limitations under Article 19(2) and does not cover defamation or content threatening communal harmony. It also highlighted potential violations of Articles 14, 21, and 25 of the Constitution, raising concerns about the lack of regulatory oversight for OTT platforms.
On February 10, the Delhi High Court was informed by Netflix that the producers had voluntarily decided to change the film’s title in response to the concerns raised. The court subsequently dismissed the petition, noting that the petitioner’s concerns, focused solely on the title, had been addressed by the decision to adopt a new name.
(With contributions from ANI)