The Supreme Court on Thursday made it clear that the upcoming Netflix film, previously titled ‘Ghooskhor Pandat’, will not be permitted to be released unless the filmmakers file an affidavit indicating the new title and ensuring that it does not denigrate any section of society.
“Freedom of expression is one thing. That doesn’t give licence to denigrate anybody,” a bench of justices BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan observed, warning that the film’s release would not be allowed if the fresh name was likely to target or demean a particular class or community.
The bench was hearing a public interest petition filed by Atul Mishra, who objected to the title on the ground that it defamed and stereotyped the Brahmin community. At the outset, the bench sought clarity from the producers.
“What is the name of the film now?” the court asked.
The counsel for Neeraj Pandey, producer-director of the Manoj Bajpayee-starrer, said the earlier title had been withdrawn, but a decision on the new name had not yet been taken. “We have not been able to decide on the new title. We can assure that it will be such that there will not be any conflict,” the counsel said.
The court was not inclined to leave the matter at an oral assurance. “You make a submission that you will not have this title. 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,” the bench retorted.
{{/usCountry}}The court was not inclined to leave the matter at an oral assurance. “You make a submission that you will not have this title. 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,” the bench retorted.
{{/usCountry}}Emphasising that fraternity is a constitutional value, the bench questioned the need to adopt a title that could deepen existing social fissures.
“Why can’t there be restraint when you try to make this kind of division when there are already fissures in society? Why should you denigrate anybody? Why should you denigrate a section of society by this kind of title?” the court asked.
The bench added, “Being woke is one thing. But denigrating the public and creating this kind of unrest…you are adding to the unrest.”
The court also reminded the film industry and the media of their respective responsibilities. “We thought filmmakers, journalists, etc, were responsible people. You tell us the new name, otherwise, we will not permit release of this film.”
The film has been described by the makers as a fictional, reformative police drama slated for streaming on Netflix.
The filmmaker’s lawyer has characterised the movie as a reformative, fictional police drama and stated that the earlier title gave rise to unintended interpretations that did not align with the film’s content.
However, the bench questioned the necessity of such terminology even in a fictional narrative. “In a fictional police drama, why do you bring all this? Look at the unrest,” the court remarked.
The petitioner’s counsel argued that merely changing the title might not suffice, contending that the underlying narrative equated religious offerings with bribery. “They are saying ‘ghoos’ to ‘dakshina’. When we go to temple and offer money to pujari, they are saying it is ghoos. The narrative may be changed,” he submitted.
The bench, however, said the film appeared to centre around a police officer. “There is no pandit or pujari in that film,” the court said at one point, noting that it “deals with some police officer.”
At the same time, the court signalled that it did not intend to allow the issue to escalate.
When the lawyer for the petitioner indicated that the script could be furnished, the bench responded: “Now don’t make too much of it. There are other issues also. So many communities are being targeted.”
It advised the parties not to create unnecessary controversy. “Till then, don’t create any ‘halla gulla’ about this matter. Don’t make a mountain out of a molehill,” the court said.