After ‘Ghooskhor Pandat’ found itself at the centre of a legal row, another film, Yadav Ji Ki Love Story, faced similar turbulence over its title. The controversy began when the chief of the Vishwa Yadav Parishad approached the court, seeking either a ban on the film or a change in its name. The objection stemmed from the storyline, which revolves around a Hindu girl marrying a Muslim boy, with the petitioner alleging that the title cast the Yadav community in a negative light.On Wednesday, the Supreme Court of India declined to entertain the plea. As per PTI, a bench comprising Justices BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan examined the submissions and dismissed the petition, observing that the primary complaint was that the film’s title allegedly tarnished the community’s image.Addressing the argument, Justice Nagarathna remarked, “Therefore, the contention is that the name of the film is to be changed. We fail to understand as to how the title of a film can reflect the community in a bad light. The title of the film nowhere has any adjective or any word that portrays the Yadav community in bad light.”The bench also referred to its earlier order in a case involving Ghooskhor Pandat, where the court had directed the producer to modify the title. Drawing a clear distinction, the judges described the present concerns as “wholly unfounded.”Explaining the difference, the order stated: “The expression ‘ghooskhor’ in English means corrupt. Therefore a negative meaning was being attached to the community. In the instant case no such negativity is attached to the Yadav community. Neither of the reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2) (reasonable restrictions to freedom of speech and expression) under the Constitution are attracted. The name in no way portrays the Yadav community in bad light or any negative way. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed,” the order said.During the proceedings, the petitioner’s counsel clarified that the organisation was not opposed to inter-community marriages but objected to the depiction of a woman in the narrative. However, the bench was not persuaded, noting that the film is a fictional creation and does not warrant judicial intervention on those grounds.See More: Rashmika Mandanna & Vijay Deverakonda Wedding Live Update: Couple to celebrate heritage with Telugu and Kodava marriage rituals
