Atul Mishra v. Union of India - Ghooskhor Pandat - Movie Name Change

Case Information

Case name and neutral citation:Atul Mishra v. Union of India & Others, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 181 of 2026 (Supreme Court of India). No separate neutral citation is mentioned in the text.

Coram

The judgment is delivered by a Bench comprising:

• Justice B.V. Nagarathna
• Justice Ujjal Bhuyan (who also writes a separate opinion)

Judgment date

The order/judgment is dated 19 February 2026, at New Delhi.

Case laws and citations referred

1. Citizenship Act, 1955, Section 6A in Re – (2024) 16 SCC 105
2. S. Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram – (1989) 2 SCC 574
3. Shreya Singhal v. Union of India – (2015) 5 SCC 1
4. Imran Pratapgadhi v. State of Gujarat – (2026) 1 SCC 721
5. Bhagwati Charan Shukla v. Provincial Government – AIR 1947 Nagpur 1
6. Ramesh v. Union of India (“Tamas” case) – (1988) 1 SCC 668
7. Manzar Sayeed Khan v. State of Maharashtra – (2007) 5 SCC 1
8. Bobby Art International v. Om Pal Singh Hoon (“Bandit Queen”) – (1996) 4 SCC 1
9. Prakash Jha Productions v. Union of India – (2011) 8 SCC 372
10. Nachiketa Walhekar v. Central Board of Film Certification – (2018) 1 SCC 778
11. Viacom 18 Media Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India – (2018) 1 SCC 761
12. Adarsh Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. v. Union of India – (2018) 17 SCC 516
13. Harinder Singh Sikka v. Union of India – 2018 SCC OnLine SC 4002
14. Indibily Creative Pvt. Ltd. v. Government of West Bengal – (2020) 12 SCC 436

Statutes / constitutional provisions / laws referred

• Constitution of India
• • Preamble (fraternity, dignity, unity and integrity of the nation)
  • Article 19(1)(a) – freedom of speech and expression
  • Article 19(2) – reasonable restrictions (sovereignty, integrity, security of State, public order, decency, morality, contempt of court, defamation, incitement to an offence)
  • Article 21 – right to life and dignity
  • Article 51A, particularly 51A(e) – fundamental duty to promote harmony and spirit of common brotherhood
• Cinematograph Act, 1952
• • Section 3 – constitution of the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC)
  • Section 5B – grounds for refusal / regulation of certification
  • Section 5C – appeal to Appellate Tribunal
  • Section 5E – suspension/revocation of certificate by Central Government
  • Section 6(2) & 6(3) – revisional powers of Central Government and hearing requirement
• Cinematograph (Certification) Rules, 1983 and Cinematograph (Certification) Rules, 2024 (replacement noted).
• Central Government guidelines for film certification (under the Act).
• Information Technology Act, 2000, Section 66A (referred in context of Shreya Singhal).

Three-sentence summary

The petitioner, representing a Brahmin organization, challenged the film titled “Ghooskhor Pandat” on the ground that equating “Pandat” with “bribe-taker” stereotyped and vilified the Brahmin community, violating their dignity and potentially disturbing public order, and sought to restrain its release and to have CBFC re-examine it. During proceedings, the director-producer (respondent No. 3) unequivocally undertook on affidavit to withdraw the title “Ghooskhor Pandat”, not to use it in any manner, and to adopt a new title not similar or evocative of the earlier one, leading the Court to dispose of the writ petition and to expect a complete quietus to all related civil or criminal controversy. In a separate concurring opinion, Justice Ujjal Bhuyan used the occasion to restate that while the Constitution forbids vilification of any community and upholds fraternity, courts must zealously protect freedom of speech and expression in films and other arts, with interference permissible only within the narrow bounds of Article 19(2) and the statutory scheme under the Cinematograph Act.