Supreme Court Orders Renaming Of Netflix Film ‘Ghooskhor Pandat’
Supreme Court of India, Ghooskhor Pandat; Netflix
The Supreme Court on Thursday directed the makers of the Netflix film “Ghooskhor Pandat” to change its title, holding that it was denigrative of a particular community and could not be permitted under the constitutional framework governing free speech.
The bench was hearing a public interest litigation seeking a stay on the release and screening of the upcoming film. The petition alleged that “Ghooskhor Pandat” promotes caste and religion-based stereotyping and hurts the dignity and religious sentiments of the Brahmin community.
The bench of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan warned the respondent filmmakers that the Court would not allow any section of society to be denigrated through the title or other offensive content in the film, if any.
“Why should you denigrate anybody? It is against morality and public order. Being woke is one thing, but creating this kind of unrest when there is already unrest in the country is another,” Justice Nagarathna remarked during the hearing.
The bench underscored that freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a) is subject to reasonable restrictions, particularly when it threatens public order, morality, and fraternity.
Observing that filmmakers, journalists, and creators are expected to act responsibly, the court reminded the respondents that the framers of the Constitution were acutely aware of India’s social diversity. “As early as the late 1940s, the framers recognised the multitude of castes, races, and communities, and therefore introduced the concept of fraternity. If you use your freedom to denigrate any section of society, we can’t permit it,” Justice Nagarathna said.
The court issued notice to the respondents and asked the filmmakers to suggest alternative titles for the film. The bench made it clear that "no section of society should be denigrated through creative expression".
Taking note of the concerns raised, the Supreme Court directed the filmmakers to file an affidavit proposing a new title and detailing any other changes made to the film in compliance with the Court’s directions.
The matter has been listed for further hearing on February 19.
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.
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.
Case Title: Atul Mishra v. Union of India & Ors.
Bench: Justices BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan
Hearing Date: February 12, 2026