Ghooskhor Pandat Title Row: Supreme Court Warns Makers + Seeks Name Change Before Release
The controversy around Ghooskhor Pandat has intensified after the Supreme Court issued a notice to the makers over the film’s allegedly casteist title. The bench made it clear that the film would not be allowed to release unless the producers inform the court about a revised name.
During the hearing, the court strongly questioned the intent behind using the title. The bench observed that denigrating a section of society through a film name raises concerns related to morality and public order. According to reports, the judges warned the filmmakers to disclose the new title, failing which release permissions could be withheld.
The Netflix film, written and produced by Neeraj Pandey and starring Manoj Bajpayee in the lead, has already faced criticism on social media. The title, which translates to “a corrupt Brahmin”, triggered backlash from certain groups who argued that it promotes stereotyping and caste-based hostility.
The court has directed Neeraj Pandey to submit an affidavit clarifying that the film does not intend to disparage any community. A follow-up hearing has been scheduled for February 19, by which time the revised title is expected to be presented.
The plea before the court alleged that the film’s title threatens communal harmony and violates constitutional principles by encouraging caste-based characterisation. Petitioners sought an immediate halt to its streaming and release.
Based on the teaser, Ghooskhor Pandat appears to be a crime thriller revolving around a corrupt police officer played by Manoj Bajpayee, who seeks redemption through a complex case. However, even before its release, the film has found itself at the centre of a legal and social storm.
Our Thoughts
Film titles often carry symbolic weight, but in a sensitive social climate, even naming choices can trigger larger debates about representation and responsibility. The Supreme Court’s intervention signals how closely creative expression is being scrutinised when it intersects with identity politics. Whether the makers choose a new title or defend their creative stance, this episode reflects the growing tension between artistic freedom and social sensitivity. The final decision may set an important precedent for future content in the streaming era.