Recently, the producers of a Netflix movie titled ‘Ghooskhor Pandat’ were taken to court. A PIL had been filed in the Supreme Court, seeking a ban on the movie. The PIL had been filed by a man claiming to be the National Organisation Secretary of the Brahman Samaj of India. His petition argued that the movie portrayed the Brahmin community in a negative light, by “equating” bribe-taking with the title ‘Pandat’. It said it would provoke disharmony, and a law and order problem.
The film’s producers offered to relinquish the title, and release the movie under a different name. So, the case was closed. However, the associate judge on the Bench handling the case, Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, has authored a separate opinion, where he has sought to restate first principles, dwelling on the themes of fraternity and free speech.
On the one hand, the opinion states that it is “constitutionally impermissible” for state or non-state actors to “vilify or denigrate any community”. Many have expressed concerns that this could be used to impose further restrictions on free speech and artistic expression. But the judge has also observed that the effects of words must be judged from the standards of ordinary men of common sense and prudence, and not “on the basis of 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”.
Free speech is the most critical element of a democracy, and there seems to be enough here for those who want to spin the opinion as pro-free speech or as anti-free speech. What is the broader context of this commentary, and what are its legal implications?
Guest: Supreme Court advocate Deepak Joshi
Host: G Sampath
Producer and editor: Jude Weston
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
