Diljit Dosanjh's Sutlej Removal From Zee5 Challenged Before Punjab and Haryana High Court

A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has been filed before the Punjab and Haryana High Court challenging the removal of actor-singer Diljit Dosanjh-starrer film Satluj from streaming platform ZEE5 less than 48 hours after its release, contending that the takedown amounts to an unconstitutional restriction on free speech and artistic expression.

The petition, filed by one Shravan Singh, seeks directions for restoration of the film on the OTT platform and questions the legality of its withdrawal in the absence of any publicly disclosed statutory order or judicial direction authorising such action.

The film, originally titled Punjab '95, is based on the life of human rights activist Jaswant Singh Khalra, who documented the alleged enforced disappearances and extrajudicial killings during Punjab's militancy era. The project has remained embroiled in controversy for several years over Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) certification issues before it eventually premiered on ZEE5 as Satluj. However, it was taken down from the platform within two days of its release, triggering widespread criticism and debate over censorship and freedom of expression.

According to the PIL, the sudden removal of the film infringes the guarantee of freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. The plea argues that the constitutional protection extends not only to filmmakers and creators but also to viewers, who have a right to access artistic, historical and cultural works.

The petitioner has questioned whether citizens can be deprived of viewing a work of art without any transparent legal process. It contends that neither the Union Government nor the OTT platform publicly disclosed any legal basis for the takedown, leaving viewers and the filmmakers unaware of the reasons behind the decision.

The plea further argues that any restriction on free speech must satisfy the constitutional framework under Article 19(2), which permits only reasonable restrictions on specified grounds such as sovereignty and integrity of India, security of the State, public order and decency. In the absence of a disclosed order invoking any such ground, the petition claims that the removal of Satluj lacks transparency and procedural fairness.

It also raises broader concerns regarding digital censorship, asserting that arbitrary withdrawal of certified or released content from online platforms could have a chilling effect on artistic freedom. According to the petitioner, allowing content to disappear without disclosure of the legal authority or decision-making process undermines public confidence in constitutional protections afforded to creative works.

The controversy surrounding Satluj has generated significant public and political attention. Reports had earlier suggested that the film was removed after concerns were raised regarding its potential impact on public order and national security. However, no formal order directing the removal has been placed in the public domain, an issue that forms one of the central planks of the present PIL.

The takedown has also reignited debate over the regulation of OTT platforms and the extent to which governments can influence the availability of online content. While theatrical releases are governed by the certification regime under the Cinematograph Act, questions relating to the removal of content already released on digital platforms continue to evolve within India's legal framework.

Through the PIL, the petitioner has sought judicial intervention to ensure that executive or platform-level decisions affecting access to artistic works are subjected to constitutional scrutiny. Besides restoration of the film on ZEE5, the plea seeks greater transparency regarding the authority, process and legal justification behind the decision to remove it from public view.

The matter is presently at the filing stage before the Punjab and Haryana High Court. No notice has yet been issued, and the court is yet to consider the maintainability or merits of the petition.