Why denigrate a section of society? Supreme Court on Manoj Bajpayee-starrer 'Ghooskhor Pandat'

The Supreme Court on Thursday questioned the makers of the Netflix film "Ghooskhor Pandat" over its title, asking why a section of society should be “denigrated” in the name of creative expression [Atul Mishra Versus Union Of India And Ors.].

A Bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan directed producer Neeraj Pandey to file an affidavit confirming the change of the film’s title along with the proposed new name.

"If you don't give us the new name, we will not permit the film to be released," the Court remarked during the hearing.

The Court was hearing a plea by Atul Mishra, National Organisation Secretary of the Brahman Samaj of India, seeking directions against the release of the film on the ground that its title stereotypes and maligns the Brahmin community.

Pertinently, in a similar petition before the Delhi High Court, the makers had already assured that they would change the film’s title following widespread backlash.

The High Court had disposed of that petition after being informed that the producers had taken a conscious decision to change the title and had also taken down promotional material.

Today, when a similar grievance was raised before the Supreme Court, the Bench made it clear that constitutional fraternity cannot be ignored in the name of creative freedom.

During the hearing, the Court questioned the use of the word “Pandat” in conjunction with “Ghooskhor” (bribe taker), observing that such a title could unfairly stigmatise an identifiable community.

The Bench underscored that while it fully respects the right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a), that freedom is not absolute.

“We are fully respecting the right under Article 19(1)(a). But there are certain restrictions. We want to include the aspect of fraternity. It is one of the basic principles of the Constitution. We want to relate this matter to fraternity. Why can’t there be a restraint when you try to make this kind of division when there are already fissures in the society. Why should you denigrate anybody? Why should you denigrate a section of the society by this kind of title? Being woke is one thing. But denigrating public and creating this kind of unrest. You are adding to the unrest," the bench remarked.

The Court also expressed concern about the larger social impact of such titles.

“We thought filmmakers, journalists, etc are responsible people. You tell us the new name otherwise we will not permit release of this film,” it said.

The counsel for the producer submitted that the title had already been withdrawn as per the Delhi High Court's orders and that a new title would be finalised soon.

He reiterated that the film is a fictional police drama and reformative in nature, and that there was no intent to target any community.

When asked by the Court what the new title would be, counsel said they had not yet finalised it but assured the Bench that it would not create any conflict.

The Court directed that these assurances be placed on record by way of an affidavit.

“Freedom of expression is one thing. That doesn’t give license to denigrate anybody. Say all this in affidavit," the Court said.

Meanwhile, counsel appearing for the Brahman Samaj argued that merely changing the name would not address the deeper issue, and submitted that the narrative itself portrayed religious practices in a negative light.

"Only change of name will not serve the purpose. They are saying ghoos (bribe) to dakshina. When we go to temple and offer money to pujari, they are saying it is ghoos. The narrative may be changed," counsel argued.

However, the Bench responded that the film did not revolve around priests.

“There is no pandit or pujari in that film. It deals with some police officer,” the Court said.

When the petitioner’s counsel insisted that such a character did exist, counsel for the producer reiterated that the title had already been withdrawn and the movie was yet to be released.

The Bench then cautioned against escalating the issue further.

“Now don’t make too much of it. There are other issues also. So many communities are being targeted,” it said.

Ultimately, the Court issued notice to the respondents and recorded the submission that steps were being taken to change the title of the movie.

The matter has been posted for further hearing on February 19.

Before rising, the Bench advised all sides to avoid fuelling controversy.

“Till then don’t create any ‘halla gulla’ about this matter. Don’t make a mountain out of a molehill,” it said.

The plea was filed through advocate Vinod Kumar Tewari.

[Read Live Coverage]