O R D E R

The writ petitioner herein is aggrieved by the upcoming film titled “Ghooskhor Pandat”, which according to them equates “Pandat” (a caste within the Hindu society) with “Ghooskhor” (bribe-taker). This, according to the petitioner, creates offensive stereotyping against an identifiable community and violates their right to dignity under Article 21. Therefore, he seeks restraining of the release, screening, or broadcasting of the said film.

2. On 12.02.2026, we had issued notice to the respondents in the Writ Petition. We had also recorded the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents that steps are being taken to change the title of the movie.

3. Learned senior counsel Sri Kaul appearing for respondent No.3/Director-Producer drew our attention to the affidavit that has since been filed by respondent No.3. He pointed out that paragraph 5 of the said affidavit is in the nature of an undertaking and that having regard to the unequivocal withdrawal of the title of the film and a decision taken to change to a new title in terms of the said affidavit, the cause no longer survives. He, therefore, submitted that the affidavit may be taken on record and into consideration, and consequently the writ petition may be disposed of as the grievances advanced by the petitioner herein are suitably addressed by the affidavit filed.

4. In response to this, learned counsel for the petitioner stated that, no doubt, respondent No.3 has decided to withdraw the present title of the film; however, any future name to be given to the film ought not be evocative of the earlier title. He submitted that this Court may pass appropriate order(s) having regard to the affidavit filed by respondent No.3.

5. We have taken note of the submissions made at the Bar by learned senior counsel for respondent No.3 and learned counsel for the petitioner.

6. Paragraph 5 of the affidavit reads as under:

“I respectfully submit that the earlier title, “Ghooskhor Pandit” stands unequivocally withdrawn and shall not be used in any manner whatsoever. While the new title has not yet been finalised, I undertake that any title that may hereafter be identified and adopted shall not be similar to, or evocative of, the earlier title in respect of which objections were raised, and shall accurately reflect the narrative and intent of the film without giving rise to unintended interpretations.”

7. We find that respondent No.3 has positively responded to the grievances ventilated by the petitioner before this Court and has by a quick response realised that no purpose may be achieved by a prolonged standoff with the petitioner.

8. We find that the stand taken by respondent No.3 is appropriate having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case. Therefore, we take into consideration paragraph 5 of the affidavit and note that respondent No.3 has decided to change the title of the film from “Ghooskhor Pandat” to any other suitable title.

9. In view of the same, we find that the writ petition would not call for any further consideration and the same stands disposed.

10. We also observe that having regard to the positive and conciliatory response of respondent No.3 to this writ petition, it is expected that there should be a quietus given to this controversy in all respects whether in the form of civil or criminal proceedings or in any other form.

11. In view of the disposal of the writ petition, all pending application(s) including the application for intervention/impleadment stand disposed.

……………………………………………………J.

[B.V. NAGARATHNA]

……………………………………………………J.

[UJJAL BHUYAN]

NEW DELHI;

FEBRUARY 19, 2026

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 181 OF 2026

ATUL MISHRA PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. RESPONDENT(S)

ORDER

UJJAL BHUYAN, J.

Though in the ordinary course, a separate opinion would not have been warranted in this case in view of the fact that the third respondent has stated on oath that the title of the movie has been withdrawn on the b