This post was originally published on here
The Supreme Court on Thursday closed proceedings against the release of the Netflix film earlier titled “Ghooskhor Pandat” after filmmaker Neeraj Pandey filed an affidavit promising that the future title of the movie would not be “similar to, or evocative of” the withdrawn name and would accurately reflect the narrative and intent of the film without giving rise to unintended interpretations.
A bench of justices BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan disposed of the petition after taking note of Pandey’s affidavit. The bench also appealed for an end to the controversy.
“Let noble thoughts come from all directions…let there be no more controversies,” the court told Pandey’s counsel, Sachin Gupta.
In his affidavit filed through Gupta, Pandey underlined that neither he nor his production house had any “deliberate or malicious intention” of outraging the religious feelings of any class of citizens. He asserted that the film does not insult or attempt to insult any religion, community or religious belief — whether by words, visuals, title, promotional material or otherwise.
The filmmaker clarified that the project is a fictional, reformative police drama centred on a criminal investigation and does not portray any caste, religion or sect as corrupt.
Addressing the controversy that arose after a teaser was released on February 3, Pandey said the promotional material was withdrawn on February 6 after concerns were raised.
The affidavit stated that the earlier title “stands unequivocally withdrawn and shall not be used in any manner whatsoever.” While the new title has not yet been finalised, Pandey undertook that any future title adopted would not resemble or evoke the earlier one in respect of which objections had been raised.
The affidavit also underlined that the film is still at the editing stage and has not yet been released.
The Supreme Court was hearing a petition filed by Atul Mishra, who objected to the original title on the ground that it defamed and stereotyped the Brahmin community. He was represented by advocates Vinod Kumar Tewari, Pramod Tiwari and Vivek Tiwari.
The controversy had earlier reached the Delhi High Court in a similar petition. Pandey’s affidavit noted that the high court, after recording the production house’s statement that the title would be changed, disposed of the matter on February 10, observing that nothing survived for adjudication.
Earlier, while issuing notice in the present case, the Supreme Court had made it clear that freedom of expression does not extend to denigrating any section of society. The bench had stressed that while Article 19(1)(a) guarantees free speech, it is subject to reasonable restrictions and must be balanced with the constitutional value of fraternity.
On February 12, the top court made it clear that the film would not be permitted to release unless its makers place on record, by way of an affidavit, the new title – and ensure that it does not denigrate any section of society.
On Thursday, however, after being satisfied with the affidavit and undertaking placed on record, the court brought the curtain down on the proceedings, effectively clearing the path for the film’s eventual release, subject to compliance with the assurances given.
