4 min readNew DelhiUpdated: Feb 25, 2026 12:09 PM IST
“It is constitutionally impermissible for anybody…to vilify and denigrate any community” whether through speeches or visual arts, Supreme Court judge Justice Ujjal Bhuyan said recently in his separate order in the controversy over the film title Ghooskhor Pandit.
On February 19, a bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan disposed of a petition challenging the film’s title after accepting the director/producer’s undertaking to change it.
Though the court closed the writ petition in view of the undertaking, Justice Bhuyan said he found it appropriate to record his views “having regard to the larger issue involved”.
The judge said that two questions are involved in the matter: fraternity and free speech, both of which are fundamental.
The bench observed that there should be no targeting of any community; the constitutional objective of fraternity is paramount. It is the fundamental duty of every citizen of India to foster brotherhood and fraternal feelings, the bench said, adding that freedom of speech and expression is not absolute and is subject to reasonable restrictions.
Justice Bhuyan pointed out that “one of the solemn objectives of our Constitution, which finds mention in 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” and “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.”
Justice Bhuyan stated that “unlike the West, in India, fraternity is distinctly perceived as a vital instrument for realising equality and harmonizing the diverse segments of society. It serves as a conduit for transcending societal disparities and working towards collective well-being. Therefore, in the Indian constitutional context, fraternity assumes a dynamic and inclusive role, aligning with the broader goals of social justice, equality and upliftment.”
Story continues below this ad
Justice Bhuyan added, “It is therefore 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 office who have taken the solemn oath to uphold the Constitution.”
No restrictions on films after CBFC clearance
His opinion went on to cite instances when the Supreme Court had dealt with freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution in the context of films, and said the court “was clear in enunciating the principle that once the film is granted 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.”
Justice Bhuyan added, “Deprecating the activities of any body, group, association or individual seeking to prevent exhibition of a film, this Court was of the opinion that if such activities are encouraged, it would bring in anarchy and cripple the right to freedom of speech and expression”.
He added, “Once the expert body has considered the impact of the film on the public and has cleared the film, it is no excuse to say that there may be a law and order situation due to screening of the movie. In a democratic society, there are bound to be divergent views. It is for the State to maintain law and order. Once the Board has cleared the film for public viewing, screening of the same cannot be prohibited in the manner in which it was sought to be done.”
