Disclaimer: This has been reported after the availability of the order of the Court and not on media reports, so as to give an accurate report to our readers.
Supreme Court: While considering this petition seeking restraining of upcoming film titled “Ghooskhor Pandat”, which, as per the petitioner, creates offensive stereotyping against an identifiable community and violates their right to dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution, the Division Bench of B.V. Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhyan, JJ., noted that the respondents had positively responded to the grievances expressed by the petitioner before the Court via their affidavit and had decided to unequivocally withdraw the offending movie title and change it. The respondent had further assured that the withdrawn title shall not be used in any manner whatsoever.
In a separate opinion, Ujjal Bhuyan, J*., stated that this petition involved fundamental questions on fraternity and free speech and 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. “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. This is particularly true for public figures occupying high constitutional once who have taken the solemn oath to uphold the Constitution”.
Background:
The present writ was filed in public interest by the National Organisation Secretary of Brahman Samaj of India feeling aggrieved by a movie called “Ghooskhor Pandat” saying that the movie portrays the Brahmin community in a negative and defamatory manner which in turn may provoke disharmony between various groups of people leading to law and order problem.
During a preliminary hearing, the Court had expressed serious concern at the attempt to show any particular community in a negative manner.
Court’s Assessment and Decision:
Taking note of the affidavit presented by the respondent, wherein they had decided to withdraw the title “Ghooskhor Pandat”, the Court pointed out that the respondent’s decision was appropriate. “We find that respondent 3 has positively responded to the grievances ventilated by the petitioner before this Court and has by a quick response realised that no purpose may be achieved by a prolonged standoff with the petitioner”.
Therefore, the Court deemed it fit to dispose of the petition as it did not call for further consideration.
Opinion by Ujjal Bhuyan, J.
Taking note of the larger issue involved in the petition, Ujjal Bhuyan, J., deemed it fit to issue a separate opinion. He stated that the petition involved the following essential facets of the Constitution:
Fraternity
Bhuyan, J., stated that the Preamble is to promote amongst all the citizens of India fraternity, assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the nation. Furthermore, Article 51-A(e) of the Constitution says that it shall be the duty of every citizen of India to promote harmony and the spirit of common brotherhood amongst all the people of India transcending religious, linguistic and regional or sectional diversities.
Bhuyan, J., referred to Supreme Court’s observations in Citizenship Act, 1955, Section 6-A, In re, (2024) 16 SCC 105, wherein the Court observed that the term “fraternity”, as articulated in the Preamble, embodies a sense of collective brotherhood amongst all Indians. Furthermore, referring to the Constituent Assembly debates, Bhuyan J., pointed out that Dr B.R. Ambedkar’s views highlighted the significance of adding the term ‘fraternity’ in the Preamble is to instill a sense of shared brotherhood amongst all Indians, highlighting that it was imperative for national unity and social solidarity.
Therefore, Bhuyan J., opined that State or non-state actors should not vilify and denigrate any community through any medium, such as, speeches, memes, cartoons, visual arts etc., as the same is constitutionally impermissible.
Free Speech
Bhuyan, J., pointed out that the touchstone of free speech which in India is traceable to Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, is subject to certain restrictions provided for in Art. 19(2) of the Constitution.
Bhuyan, J., referred to Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, (2015) 5 SCC 1, wherein the Court had observed that when it comes to democracy, liberty of thought and expression is a cardinal value that is of paramount significance under the constitutional scheme. Further in Imran Pratapgadhi v. State of Gujarat, (2026) 1 SCC 721, the Supreme Court had declared that one of the most important fundamental rights conferred on the citizens of India is under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
Bhuyan J., further pointed out that how the Supreme Court over the years has held that the effect of the spoken or written words will have to be considered based on standards of reasonable, strong minded, firm and courageous individuals and not based on the standards of people with weak and oscillating minds. The effect of the spoken or written words cannot be judged on the basis of the standards of people who always have a sense of insecurity or of those who always perceive criticism as a threat to their power or position.
Concluding his opinion, Bhuyan, J., reverted to Imran Pratapgadhi (supra) reiterated that the “reasonable restriction provided for in Article 19(2) must remain reasonable and not fanciful and oppressive. Article 19(2) cannot be allowed to overshadow the substantive rights under Article 19(1) including the right to freedom of speech and expression” and that “the courts must not be seen to regulate or stifle the freedom of speech and expression”.
[Atul Mishra v. Union of India, WRIT PETITION (C) NO.181 OF 2026, decided on 19-2-2026]
*Separate opinion by Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For Petitioner(s): Dr. Vinod Kumar Tewari, AOR Mr. Pawan Kumar Shukla, Adv. Mr. Pramod Tiwari, Adv. Mr. Vivek Tiwari, Adv. Mr. Bhoopesh Pandey, Adv. Mr. Vishwa Pati Trivedi, Adv. Ms. Priyanka Dubey, Adv. Mr. Sk Warish Ali, Adv. Mr. Manindra Dubey, Adv. Mr. Ravi Ketan, Adv. Mr. Jitesh Sharma, Adv.
For Respondent(s): Mr. Tushar Mehta, SG Mrs. Prerna Dhall, adv. Mr. Madhav Goel, adv. Mr. Bhavan Kapoor, Adv. Mr. Amrish Kumar, AOR Mr. Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sachin Gupta, AOR Mr. Rohit Pradhan, Adv. Ms. Surekha Srinivasan, Adv.
For Impleader(s) Mr. Shivam Singh, Adv. Mr. J. S. Marahatta, adv. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr. Narendra Kumar Goyal, Adv. Mr. Kadam Hans, Adv.
Buy Constitution of India HERE
