‘Title Change Alone Isn’t Enough’: Despite Ghooskhor Pandat Title Change, FWICE Demands Pre-Release Screening

Despite the makers agreeing to change the title of Manoj Bajpayee’s film Ghooskhor Pandat, FWICE says the move is not enough and demands a community screening before release.

FWICE raises fresh concerns over Manoj Bajpayee’s upcoming film despite the makers agreeing to change its title.

Source : Twitter/@IIFA

Show Quick Read

Key points generated by AI, verified by newsroom

Even after the makers of Neeraj Pandey’s upcoming project Ghooskhor Pandat informed the Delhi High Court that the film will be released under a new title, the controversy surrounding the Manoj Bajpayee-starrer refuses to die down. The Federation of Western India Cine Employees (FWICE) has now made it clear that a title change alone does not address the concerns raised and is insisting on a pre-release screening for the affected community.

FWICE Insists On Screening Before Release

Reacting to the latest developments, FWICE president BN Tiwari said that while the decision to rename the film is a step forward, it does not fully resolve the issue. Speaking to Hindustan Times, he stressed the need for transparency and dialogue before the project reaches audiences.

“We are fine with the decision to change the title, but that alone is not enough. We would like to watch the film and understand how the community is depicted, as a title usually stems from the essence of the narrative,” Tiwari tells.

He further expressed surprise over the involvement of senior industry figures in the controversy.

“We are shocked and surprised that such big names involving Neeraj and Manoj did this, and used a name of the community in the title. Title kahani se hi banta hai aur related hota hai isiliye community ke liye screening honi chahiye. The film should not be released without the screening. The makers need to get a go ahead from the community before releasing it. If they get it, then we don’t have any issue with it.”

Warning Of Non-Cooperation

During the interaction, Tiwari also claimed that the film’s title was never formally registered with industry bodies, something he believes could have prevented the controversy at an early stage.

“In fact, I also reached out to other concerned bodies, and they too stated that the title is not registered with them. If they would have got the title registered with us, we would have raised our concerns at that moment only,” he says.

Issuing a stern warning, the FWICE chief said the organisation would take strong steps if the makers proceed without addressing these demands.

“Screening dhikhae bina nahi release hogi. Agar makers nahi mante toh non-corporation notice dal denge aur aage unke saath kaam nahi karenge (The film will not be released without a screening. If the makers do not agree, we will issue a non-cooperation notice and will not work with them going forward),” he ends.

How The Ghooskhor Pandat Controversy Unfolded

Directed by Neeraj Pandey and Ritesh Shah, Ghooskhor Pandat landed in controversy soon after it was announced at a Netflix event earlier this month. The title triggered sharp political reactions, particularly in Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh, with Brahmin organisations alleging that the film targeted a specific community and demanding a ban.

In Uttar Pradesh, an FIR was ordered against the director over the title, while protests saw effigies of the filmmakers and Manoj Bajpayee being burnt at multiple locations. A writ petition was later filed in the Delhi High Court by Mahender Chaturvedi through Advocate Vineet Jindal, seeking a stay on the film’s release.

Delhi HC Hearing And Title Change Decision

Following the backlash, Neeraj Pandey and Manoj Bajpayee issued a clarification stating that there was no intention to hurt sentiments and announced the withdrawal of all promotional material. The ruling BJP also confirmed that the Centre had asked the OTT platform to take down the teaser and related content.

During a recent hearing, Netflix informed the Delhi High Court that the producers had taken a “conscious decision” to change the film’s title to an alternative that better reflects its narrative and intent. Taking note of this submission, the court disposed of the petition after the petitioner’s counsel stated that the grievance was limited to the title, which now stood resolved.

However, with FWICE pressing for a screening and warning of non-cooperation, the debate around the film appears far from settled.