‘Ghooskhor Pandat’ row: Netflix to adopt alternate title for Manoj Bajpayee’s upcoming film, Delhi HC closes matter

The producers of Manoj Bajpayee-starrer Ghoskhorr Pandat told the Delhi High Court on Tuesday that they have decided to change the film’s title after objections were raised over the use of the word ‘Pandat’. 

The makers said they will adopt an alternate title that better reflects the film’s narrative and intent, news agency ANI reported.

The assurance was given during the hearing of a petition seeking a stay on the film’s release and streaming. Recording the submission, the court disposed of the matter after the petitioner’s counsel, Mahender Chaturvedi, said the grievance was limited to the film’s title and now stood resolved.

The plea, filed through advocate Vineet Jindal, had sought a restraint on the film’s release, arguing that the earlier title was defamatory and communally offensive. It also sought directions to the authorities to intervene and stop the streaming of the film.

Chaturvedi, who describes himself as an Acharya devoted to the study and teaching of Indian scriptures and spiritual traditions, told the court he was aggrieved by the use of the word “Pandat” in the title.

 He argued that associating the term with corruption and bribery damaged the dignity and reputation of the Brahmin community as well as his own vocation.

The petition claimed that promotional material circulated by Netflix India linked the term with immoral and corrupt conduct. 

It stated that the word historically stands for scholarship, ethical conduct, spiritual guidance and moral authority, and that the portrayal amounted to stereotyping and vilification of an entire religious and social community.

The petitioner had also argued that the impugned title and content violated fundamental rights under Articles 14, 21 and 25 of the Constitution. While acknowledging that freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) is subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2), the plea claimed the content crossed into defamation and could disturb communal harmony.

The petitioner also flagged the lack of an effective regulatory mechanism for OTT platforms, with the plea seeking directions to the Union government to act against the misuse of creative freedom. However, after the producers submitted that the title would be changed and the petitioner said his objection stood addressed, the High Court closed the matter.