The Supreme Court issued notice to the makers of Ghooskhor Pandat and warned that the film will not be allowed to release unless its new title is disclosed. The Court also questioned whether the movie contains “something offensive towards a community” and sought an affidavit from the producers.
The Supreme Court on Thursday issued notice to the makers of the upcoming Netflix film Ghooskhor Pandat, starring Manoj Bajpayee, over objections raised against the movie’s allegedly “casteist” title. The film, directed by Neeraj Pandey and produced by Friday Filmworks, has sparked legal and political controversy even before its release.
During the hearing, the apex court strongly questioned the filmmakers and asked them to immediately inform the court about the revised title of the movie. The bench made it clear that the film would not be allowed to release unless the new name was disclosed.
The Court said,
“Tell us the new name of the film or we will not permit release,”
warning the filmmakers about the seriousness of the issue.
The controversy began after the film’s title was announced during Netflix India’s 2026 launch slate event on February 3. The title Ghooskhor Pandat, which loosely translates to “a corrupt Pandat or Brahmin,” led to strong objections from members of the Brahmin community. Several petitions claimed that the title associates a caste-identifying term with corruption and bribery, thereby hurting religious and community sentiments.
When the matter came up before the Supreme Court, the lawyer appearing for the filmmakers informed the bench that the producers had already assured the Delhi High Court that they would change the title. The counsel also stated that the trailer and all promotional materials had already been withdrawn from public platforms.
However, the Supreme Court sought further clarity. It asked the filmmakers to inform whether the content of the movie itself contains “something offensive towards a community”. The bench also directed the producers to file an affidavit clearly stating their stand and explaining the steps taken.
The Court did not stop at procedural directions. It made strong oral observations about social responsibility in filmmaking. Rebuking the production team, the bench questioned their lack of caution and asked, “why can’t there be restraint” by the film makers.
Expressing concern over growing social divisions, the Court further remarked,
“Why should you denigrate a section of society when there is already a fissure in society?”
In a broader observation on social trends, the Court blamed “wokeism” for encouraging such provocative titles and said that such movie names can disturb public peace and create unrest in society. Emphasising constitutional values, the Supreme Court clearly stated,
“Fraternity is part of the basic structure of the Constitution and freedom of speech can’t curtail it.”
The remark underlined that while freedom of speech is protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, it cannot override the principle of fraternity, which ensures unity and harmony among citizens.
The legal trouble for the film began a day after its title and teaser were made public. A petition was filed before the Delhi High Court alleging that the name is derogatory and targets the Brahmin community. The plea argued that linking the term “Pandat” with corruption shows a deliberate attempt to portray the community negatively.
Following public outrage, director Neeraj Pandey and actor Manoj Bajpayee issued statements on social media clarifying that the movie does not represent or target any community and is purely a fictional story.
Despite these clarifications, a police case was later registered in Lucknow under directions of Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath. The Central Government also stepped in and reportedly asked the filmmakers to remove all promotional content related to the film.
ALSO READ: ‘Ghooskhor Pandat’ Title Targets Brahmin Community, PIL Tells Supreme Court
With the Supreme Court now actively monitoring the matter and demanding an affidavit, the future release of the film depends on compliance with the Court’s directions.
The case has once again raised important questions about freedom of expression, artistic liberty, constitutional morality, and the responsibility of filmmakers in a sensitive social environment.
Click Here to Read More Reports On Ghooskhor Pandat
