Delhi High Court disposed of a plea seeking a stay on the Netflix film Ghooskhor Pandat after the platform agreed to change the title and remove all promotional content.
The petition claimed the title was defamatory and offensive to the Brahmin community, arguing it violated constitutional protections and communal harmony.
Actor Manoj Bajpayee clarified the film does not target any particular community, easing the controversy.
The upcoming Netflix film “Ghooskhar Pandat” was in the middle of controversy over its title. A petition seeking a stay on the release and streaming of the film was taken to the Delhi High Court, which was closed by the court after an undertaking citing a name change and withdrawal of all related promotional material from social media. The Court held that there were no further directions necessary in the matter.
A single-judge Bench of Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav took on record the submissions made on behalf of Netflix that the impugned title would no longer be used and all promotional content bearing the earlier name had already been taken down. Observing that no further directions were required in view of the stand taken by the streaming platform, the Delhi High Court disposed of the petition.
The petition, filed through advocate Vineet Jindal, had challenged the proposed release of the film on the grounds that the title "Ghooskhor Pandat" was defamatory and communally offensive. It further alleged that it maliciously associates the term "Pandat" with corruption and bribery, thereby harming the dignity and reputation of the Brahmin community.
In the writ petition, the petitioner, Mahender Chaturvedi, had contended that the term "Pandat" is "historically, culturally, and religiously associated with the Brahmin community and with Acharyas, symbolising scholarship, ethical conduct, spiritual guidance, and moral authority", and that its use in the impugned title amounts to "collective defamation, stereotyping, and vilification of an entire religious and social community".
The plea stated, "The impugned title maliciously associates the word ‘Pandat’ with corruption and bribery, thereby attacking the dignity, reputation, and vocation of the petitioner and the community to which he belongs."
The petition further argued that the proposed content violates Articles 14, 21, and 25 of the Constitution, asserting that while freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a) is constitutionally protected, it does not extend to hate speech, defamation, or content that disturbs communal harmony. The plea further said, "Freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) is not absolute and does not extend to hate speech, defamation, or content disturbing communal harmony and public order."
The case even highlighted that the absence of any regulatory intervention in the OTT sphere gives the platforms a free pass to promote "sensationalism and community-based vilification for commercial gain" without having any rules. It also stated that if things continue as they are, it would result in the abdication of the constitutional duty to protect fraternity, secularism, and public order.
It was also alleged that the absence of effective regulatory intervention in the OTT space enables platforms to promote "sensationalism and community-based vilification for commercial gain", and that failure to act would amount to an abdication of the constitutional duty to protect fraternity, secularism, and public order.
Amid the controversy, the lead actor of the film, Manoj Bajpayee, reacted to the objections, clarifying that the film does not target or comment on any specific community.
With Inputs from IANS.
(SY)
Suggested Reading: