Vilifying Any Community Through Speeches Or Art Constitutionally Impermissible; Public Figures In High Constitutional Office Equally Bound: Supreme Court
Kiran Raj
The Supreme Court Division Bench of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan closed a writ petition challenging the title of a Hindi film that allegedly portrayed the Brahmin community in a negative and defamatory light, after the film's director-producer gave an undertaking that the original title stood withdrawn and that any new title adopted would not be similar to or evocative of the earlier one. In his separate judgement, Justice Bhuyan observed that the Constitution does not permit any person — whether a State or non-State actor — to vilify or denigrate any community through any medium, including speeches, memes, cartoons, or visual arts, and that public figures occupying high constitutional offices are equally bound by this obligation. The judge balanced these observations with an affirmation that freedom of speech and expression remains a fundamental right, and that courts must not stifle creative expression beyond the permissible restrictions under Article 19(2) of the Constitution.
The writ petition was filed challenging the proposed release of a film titled “Ghooskhor Pandat,” alleging that the title equated a caste within Hindu society with bribery and thereby created offensive stereotyping against an identifiable community, infringing dignity under Article 21. The petitioner sought restraint on the release, screening, or broadcast of the film and also requested re-examination of its content by the competent authority.
On 12.02.2026, notice was issued. During the hearing, counsel for the producer submitted that steps were being taken to change the film’s title. An affidavit was subsequently filed by the producer stating that there was no deliberate or malicious intention to outrage religious feelings and that the film was a fictional police drama not portraying any caste, religion, or community as corrupt. The affidavit further stated that promotional materials had been withdrawn and that the earlier title stood unequivocally withdrawn, with an undertaking that any future title would not be similar to or evocative of the earlier one.
In view of the affidavit and submissions, the Court proceeded to consider whether any further adjudication was required.
Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, in his separate juddgement, noted at the outset that though no adjudication was strictly called for after the title was withdrawn, it was necessary to restate the first principles, "lest there remain any lingering misconception."
On the constitutional concept of fraternity, the court observed that the term, as articulated in the Preamble, embodies a sense of collective brotherhood amongst all Indians. The judge held that fraternity "is essentially an attitude of respect and reverence towards fellow human beings" and that "cultivating a sense of brotherhood and respecting fellow citizens irrespective of caste, religion or language is a constitutional dharma each one of us must follow." Reference was made to the Supreme Court's judgment concerning Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, which had recorded that fraternity "was conceived as a concept intended to cultivate a sense of brotherhood amongst all individuals within society."
Against this backdrop, the court stated that "it is constitutionally impermissible for anybody, be it the State or non-state actors, through any medium, such as, speeches, memes, cartoons, visual arts etc. to vilify and denigrate any community." The court further recorded that "it will be violative of the Constitution to target any particular community on the basis of religion, language, caste or region by whosoever he or she may be" and that this principle "is particularly true for public figures occupying high constitutional office who have taken the solemn oath to uphold the Constitution." The court also recorded that the concerns expressed by the Bench during the preliminary hearing regarding the film's title were "well founded and valid."
Turning to the question of free speech, the court observed that freedom of expression which is legitimate and constitutionally protected cannot be held to ransom by an intolerant group of people, and that any restriction must be "justified on the anvil of necessity and not the quicksand of convenience or expediency."
The court further stated that "freedom of expression cannot be suppressed on account of threats of demonstration and processions or violence" as that would amount to negation of the rule of law and a surrender to blackmail and intimidation. Relying on a line of precedents including S. Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram, Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, Imran Pratapgadhi v. State of Gujarat and the Padmaavat case, the court recorded that films must be judged from the perspective of "standards of reasonable, strong minded, firm and courageous individuals and not based on the standards of people with weak and oscillating minds."
The court also recorded that once a film is granted a certificate by the competent statutory Board, "unless the said certificate is nullified or modified by any superior authority, the producer or distributor of the film has every right to get it exhibited in a movie hall" and that courts should be extremely slow to pass any restraint order in such situations.
Drawing from Imran Pratapgadhi, the court observed that "courts, particularly the Constitutional Courts, must be at the forefront to zealously protect the fundamental rights of the citizens" and that "courts must not be seen to regulate or stifle the freedom of speech and expression." The court extracted the observation that "75 years into our republic, we cannot be seen to be so shaky on our fundamentals" that mere recital of a poem or any form of art or entertainment could be alleged to lead to animosity or hatred amongst different communities. Justice Bhuyan concluded by stating that "this would equally apply to the title of a movie as well. I say this and no more."
The Court held that “respondent No.3 has decided to change the title of the film from ‘Ghooskhor Pandat’ to any other suitable title. in view of the same, we find that the writ petition would not call for any further consideration and the same stands disposed.”
“All pending application(s) including the application for intervention/impleadment stand disposed. It is expected that there should be a quietus given to this controversy in all respects whether in the form of civil or criminal proceedings or in any other form.”
Case Title: Atul Mishra v. Union of India & Others
Case Number: Writ Petition (C) No. 181 of 2026
Bench: Justice B.V. Nagarathna, Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
