New Delhi: Freedom of speech and expression was not a licence to “denigrate” anyone or undermine the constitutional principle of fraternity, the Supreme Court observed Thursday, directing the makers of ‘Ghooskhor Pandat’ to change the film’s title and file a compliance affidavit.
The bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan questioned the logic behind the title, saying it could create division in an already fractured society.
The court asked the producer’s counsel to submit an undertaking that the movie would not be released with the present title. The bench said it respected the filmmaker’s right to free speech and expression but would not welcome any move that could impact the country’s fraternity or breach reasonable restrictions mentioned in the Constitution.
“We fully respect the right under Article 19(1)(a) (free speech). But there are certain restrictions. We want to include the aspect of fraternity. It is one of the basic principles of the Constitution. Why can’t there be restraint when you try to make this kind of division, when there are already fissures in the society,” Justice Nagarathna told the producer’s lawyer, who assured the court that the movie would not be released under the controversial title.
Expecting movie makers and journalists to be more responsible, the bench said it would not permit the movie’s release if it is not informed about the new name. The
The film was announced by Netflix earlier this month, though the platform did not give a release date. Its title immediately drew criticism from the Brahmin community, which called it offensive and derogatory.
The Supreme Court issued notice to the producer after taking up a public interest litigation (PIL) that challenged the film’s title. The PIL demanded a stay on the release and screening of the movie, claiming that it promotes caste- and religion-based stereotyping, and hurts the dignity and religious sentiments of the Brahmin community.
The producer’s counsel Thursday submitted to the court, “The film is reformative and a fictional drama. We have not been able to decide the new title, but we can assure that it will be such that there will not be any conflict.”
Both the judges Nagarathna and Bhuyan said they were not fluent in Hindi, and took time to understand the meaning of the title.
“Both my brother and I do not know Hindi so well, so we had no idea what it means until someone explained to us,” said Justice Nagarathna, who hails from Karnataka. Justice Bhuyan is from Assam.
“Why should you denigrate anybody? It’s against morality and public order. Being woke (slang for someone who is aware of injustices and social realities) is one thing. But creating this kind of unrest when there is already unrest in the country…” the bench said.
Granting a week’s time to the producer to come up with alternative titles, the judges remarked: “In a fictional police drama why do you bring all this? Look at the unrest (that you have caused).”
The petitioner’s lawyer also raised objections to the movie’s content, saying: “Only name change will not serve any purpose. They are saying ghoos to dakshina (offering made to the temple). When we go to the temple and offer money to the pujari (priest), they are saying it is ghoos. The narrative may be changed.”
But the bench did not heed this plea. Instead, it told the film producer to respect the sentiments of the framers of the Constitution who, being aware of the multitude of races, castes and other divisions, had introduced the concept of fraternity.
“If you use your freedom to denigrate any section of society, we can’t permit it,” Justice Nagarathna remarked, as the court fixed 19 February to hear the matter. By then, the filmmaker has to file an affidavit suggesting new titles for the movie.
The film stars Manoj Bajpayee, and was written by Neeraj Pandey and Ritesh Shah.
(Edited by Prerna Madan)