Supreme Court accepts filmmaker’s withdrawal of Ghooskhor Pandat title, says ‘sensibilities are fragile’

The Supreme Court on Thursday (February 19, 2026) accepted an undertaking given by producer-director Neeraj Pandey to unequivocally relinquish the title of ‘Ghooskhor Pandat’ even as the lead judge on the Bench, Justice B.V. Nagarathna, remarked that “sensibilities are fragile” nowadays.

The associate judge on the Bench, Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, said he endorsed the order of the Bench, but would write a separate opinion on the case.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, for the Centre, seemed to dissuade the judge, saying the controversy was “settled”, and a quietus arrived at.

“Don’t prevent me from expressing my views,” Justice Bhuyan addressed Mr. Mehta.

At one point, Justice Bhuyan wondered whether such petitions would open a Pandora’s box.

Justice Nagarathna remarked that viewers cannot be “over-sensitive”.

The top court was hearing a PIL filed by Atul Mishra, National Organisation Secretary of the Brahman Samaj of India, seeking directions to stay the release of the movie scheduled to stream on Netflix.

The plea had alleged that the movie title and storyline were prima facie offensive and derogatory, which portray the Brahmin community in a defamatory manner. The PIL objected to the use of the word “Pandat”, a caste and religion-identifying title, alongside “Ghooskhor”, which denotes bribery and moral corruption.

The petition had alleged that the movie promoted caste and religion-based stereotyping and threatened public order, communal harmony, and constitutional values.

The lawyers for the petitioner argued that the movie depicted the community in a bad light, associating corruption with it. Justice Nagarathna asked how they could authoritatively argue on the content of a yet-to-be-released film.

Justice Nagarathna’s remarks on the Bench leaned in favour of bringing a quietus to the controversy, rather than taking the dispute any further. She even indicated that YouTubers must abstain from poking the embers to ignite another controversy on the issue.

Mr. Mehta commented that social media was beyond control, and youngsters prefer social media over mainstream media.

Senior advocate Neeraj Kishan Kaul, for the producer-director, urged the court to record in its order that the filmmakers “never had any intention to hurt the sentiments of a community”.

The lawyers for the petitioner argued that the movie depicted the community in a bad light, associating corruption with it. Justice Nagarathna asked how they could authoritatively argue on the content of a yet-to-be-released film.

Dictating the order, Justice Nagarathna said the filmmakers’ response to step back on the movie title was “healthy and positive”. The Bench observed that the filmmakers took an appropriate stand keeping in mind the future consequences had they remained adamant.

The previous hearing had witnessed the Bench question the motive of the filmmakers for choosing such a title.

“Why should you denigrate a section of society by using such a title? This is against morality and public order. We will not allow you to release the film unless you tell us the changed title,” the Bench had said.