Change name or we won’t allow ‘Ghooskhor Pandat’ release: SC

Supreme Court Takes Action Against Controversial Film Title

The Supreme Court of India has issued a stern directive to the makers of the upcoming Netflix film 'Ghooskhor Pandat', ordering them to change the movie's title immediately. In a significant ruling passed on Thursday, a bench led by Justice B.V. Nagarathna made it clear that the film will not receive clearance for release unless the filmmakers provide an alternative title. The decision came after the court heard arguments on a public interest litigation challenging the film's name, which has sparked widespread controversy since its announcement on February 3rd as part of Netflix India's 2026 launch slate.

The court's intervention marks a notable moment in the ongoing debate about freedom of expression versus protection of community sentiments. Justice Nagarathna emphasized during the hearing that while the Constitution guarantees freedom of speech and expression, this right comes with certain restrictions and cannot be used to denigrate any section of society. The bench questioned the logic behind selecting such a title in a country already marked by social divisions, warning that the filmmakers must exercise restraint when creating content that could deepen existing fissures within society.

The Controversy Behind 'Ghooskhor Pandat'

The film title has become the center of a heated debate due to its perceived offensive nature toward the Brahmin community. The word 'ghooskhor' translates to corrupt or one who gives bribes, while 'pandit' refers to Brahmins or Hindu priests. Critics argue that combining these terms deliberately associates the entire Brahmin community with corruption and dishonesty, amounting to collective defamation and stereotyping. The Brahmin community viewed the title as an intentional slight against their dignity and religious sentiments, leading to immediate backlash when the film was announced.

The immediate reaction to the film's announcement was intense and widespread. Members of the Brahmin community organized on-ground protests where effigies of the film's makers, including producer Neeraj Pandey and director Ritesh Shah, were burned. The controversy extended to include opposition against lead actor Manoj Bajpayee and the streaming platform Netflix. After an FIR was filed against the film on the directive of Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath in Lucknow, the filmmakers were forced to take defensive action.

Response From Filmmakers and Legal Proceedings

Producer Neeraj Pandey issued a statement acknowledging the hurt caused by the film's title, while defending the film itself. In response to the mounting pressure, he took down all promotional material, including the first-look teaser that had been shared on YouTube and social media platforms. The producer's counsel assured the Supreme Court that steps were already being taken to change the title and that the film would not be released under its controversial name. The filmmakers were directed to file an affidavit containing the new title and any other changes to the film by the next hearing.

Separate criminal cases have also been registered against the director and members of the team in Lucknow, with police alleging that the film's title and content target a particular caste and promote animosity. According to the Lucknow police, preliminary scrutiny suggests the director and his team may have published the content with the intention of spreading discord and disturbing social harmony. The police statement noted that the title appeared to be deliberately chosen to insult a particular caste, with potential to disturb public peace and social concord.

Constitutional Principles and Freedom of Expression

The Supreme Court's judgment brings into focus the delicate balance between constitutional freedoms and social responsibility. This statement reflects the court's stance that while filmmakers have the right to creative expression, they must also respect the constitutional principle of fraternity and ensure their work does not undermine social harmony.

We fully respect the right under Article 19(1)(a) for free speech, but there are certain restrictions. We want to include the aspect of fraternity, which is one of the basic principles of the Constitution, and we cannot permit any section of society to be denigrated by the title of this film or other offensive material.

Justice Nagarathna's remarks highlighted that freedom of speech and expression cannot be weaponized to denigrate communities or promote division in society. The court emphasized that the framers of the Constitution, aware of the multitude of races, castes, and other divisions in the country, had introduced the concept of fraternity as a foundational principle. The bench made it clear that if creative freedom is used to demean any section of society, the court cannot permit it, regardless of artistic or commercial intent.

The next hearing in the matter is scheduled for February 19th, by which time the filmmakers must file an affidavit confirming that the title has been withdrawn and disclosing the new title for the film. The Supreme Court has made it unequivocally clear that unless a new name is placed on record, permission for the release of the film will not be granted. This development sets an important precedent regarding the responsibility of content creators to be mindful of the sensitivities of various communities while exercising their creative rights.

The case of 'Ghooskhor Pandat' exemplifies the ongoing tension in contemporary media between pushing creative boundaries and respecting community sentiments. While the film's makers maintained that the content itself does not promote stereotyping, the Supreme Court's decision demonstrates that even a title, if deemed offensive, can be grounds for intervention. As the matter proceeds, it will likely influence how filmmakers approach content creation and titling in a diverse, multicultural society where sensitivities around caste and community remain deeply rooted.