Film Title ‘Ghooskhor Pandat’ Itself Offensive, Alleges PIL Filed in Supreme Court

The petition, filed through AoR Vinod Kumar Tewari under Article 32 of the Constitution, has been moved by Atul Mishra, National Organisation Secretary of the Brahman Samaj of India (BSI), in a representative capacity on behalf of the organisation. The plea seeks the issuance of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate directions against the Union of India, the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC), and the producer and director of the film.

According to the petitioner, the film’s title and storyline are prima facie offensive and derogatory, portraying the Brahmin community in a defamatory manner. The petition specifically takes objection to the use of the word “Pandat” a caste- and religion-identifying title alongside “Ghooskhor”, which denotes bribery and moral corruption. This, the plea argues, creates a direct and offensive stereotype against an identifiable religious community.

The petitioner contends that while criticism of corruption is constitutionally permissible, the selective use of a caste-linked religious identifier is neither necessary nor justified. It is alleged to amount to community stigmatization, violation of dignity under Article 21, infringement of religious freedoms under Articles 25 and 26, and discriminatory treatment in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution.

The plea further submits that the continued exhibition of the film in its present form is likely to hurt religious sentiments, provoke communal disharmony, and disturb public order. In this context, it invokes Articles 14, 19(2), 21, 25, and 51A(e) of the Constitution, emphasizing that the right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) is not absolute and is subject to reasonable restrictions in the interests of public order, decency, morality, and national integrity.

Serious allegations have also been levelled against the CBFC, with the petitioner claiming that the statutory body either failed to properly scrutinize the film’s content or acted arbitrarily in granting certification. The petition asserts that the CBFC is constitutionally and statutorily obligated under the Cinematograph Act, 1952 to ensure that certified content does not promote contempt or ridicule of any community, unnecessarily hurt religious sentiments, or reinforce caste-based prejudice under the guise of satire.

The Brahman Samaj of India, described in the petition as a 28-year-old registered charitable and social institution, claims to represent Brahmins in India and abroad. The organisation is registered under the Firms and Societies Act, enjoys Section 80G status under the Income Tax Act, and is registered on the DARPAN portal. It has, according to the plea, worked extensively in education, healthcare, and other social welfare activities.

The petitioner asserts that the PIL is not filed for any personal interest but in the larger public interest, citing concerns of public peace, communal harmony, constitutional order, and national unity. It is also stated that the petitioner is a law-abiding citizen actively involved in social causes.

The matter is yet to be listed for hearing before the Supreme Court.