Supreme Court judge reminds state, non-state actors that art, cinema cannot be used to vilify communities

Supreme Court judge, Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, held the mirror to divisive forces within society that have weaponised visual arts, speeches, memes, cartoons to “vilify and denigrate” entire communities.

“It is 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,” Justice Bhuyan wrote.

The judge said the spirit of fraternity has to be kept alive especially by public figures holding high Constitutional offices. They have, after all, the judge reminded, taken the “solemn oath to uphold the Constitution”.

SIR hearing highlights: SC orders Calcutta Chief Justice to additionally deploy civil judges for SIR process, if necessary

Justice Bhuyan further referred to the use of threat of violence and intimidation to stop exhibition of Censor Board-certified films, saying these actions, if not checked, would lead to anarchy and cripple the right to freedom of speech and expression.

Justice Bhuyan’s opinion, published on Wednesday (February 25, 2026), is part of a judicial order of February 19 pronounced by a Bench of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and himself in a petition filed by Atul Mishra, National Organisation Secretary of the Brahman Samaj of India, seeking directions to stay the release of the movie ‘Ghooskhor Pandat’ on Netflix. The petitioners had found the title offensive. The filmmaker had capitulated, withdrawing the name. The court had commented about the fragility of sensibilities nowadays.

The judge said the right of a moviemaker to either send a message across to the society at large or make a film for pure entertainment was traceable to Article 19(1)(a) (freedom of speech) of the Constitution.

Reasonable restrictions on free speech could be imposed only if it concerned the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the state, friendly relations with foreign states, public order, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence.

“Freedom of expression cannot be suppressed on account of threats of demonstration and processions or violence. That would amount to negation of the rule of law and a surrender to blackmail and intimidation… We must practice tolerance to the views of others. Intolerance is as much dangerous to democracy as to the person himself,” the judge quoted from judicial precedents from the Supreme Court.

Justice Bhuyan reasoned that once an expert body like the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) has considered the impact of the film on the public and has cleared the film, it was no excuse to say that there would 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,” the judge wrote. Courts should be extremely slow to pass any kind of restraint order on the freedom of a creative person.

“Those who disagree have a simple expedient; of not watching a film, not turning the pages of the book or not hearing what is not music to their ears. The ability to communicate ‘ideas’ is a legitimate area of human endeavour and is not controlled by the acceptability of the views to those to whom they are addressed,” Justice Bhuyan quoted.

Turning to the courts, in a note of introspection, Justice Bhuyan said “we, the Judges, may not like spoken or written words. But still it is the duty of the Judges of the constitutional courts to uphold the fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(a). Constitutional courts must be at the forefront to zealously protect the fundamental rights of the citizens”.

“Courts must not be seen to regulate or stifle the freedom of speech and expression,” Justice Bhuyan observed.

Published – February 25, 2026 03:42 pm IST