Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath’s direction to file a first information report (FIR) against the makers of a film over its title, Ghooskhor Pandat, is a sign of how sections of the ruling establishment have come to treat speech that they dislike.

Mr. Adityanath alleged that the title attempts to disrupt social harmony and hurts religious or caste sentiments.

The producer agreed to remove promotional materials for the film.

A dispute over expression quickly became a policing matter and the threat of criminal process swiftly compelled capitulation, even before any court had examined the facts.

Article 19(1)(a) protects speech precisely because it can sometimes be unwelcome to powerful groups.

The restrictions that the state can impose are enumerated in Article 19(2), and have to be proportionate.

Courts have also separated speech that offends from speech related to violence or disorder.

In the present case, the FIR is a threat, issued by a Chief Minister no less, to mobilise the coercive machinery of criminal law, a sign that the state fears public debate and wants to flatten the issue to a matter of discipline.

Of late, the visual arts have often been met with restrictions.

In 2023, West Bengal ordered that The Kerala Story not be screened in the State to maintain “law and order”; a few months earlier, the Centre had directed platforms to remove links to the BBC documentary, India: The Modi Question, sans a judicial finding on illegality.

Other examples include Kaum De Heere (2014), India’s Daughter (2015), Padmaavat (2018), and the documentaries, Infiltrating Australia – India’s Secret War and Contract to Kill (both 2024).

In a diverse society, people can plausibly say they are hurt by many things, which is why sentiments are not useful thresholds to trigger a criminal process.

Equally, when film-makers and distributors believe that the safest way out is to erase contested material rather than defend it in law, the public loses access to the work, courts lose the chance to clarify legal standards, society loses a chance to exercise the democratic response to controversial art — e.g., boycott or satire in return — and, over time, the marketplace of ideas wilts.

Speech is not always free of consequences but the state bears the burden to examine it with specificity.

A more sensible response, when there is a credible claim of unlawfulness, is for the aggrieved party to seek judicial relief, record the reasons, and adopt the least restrictive measure.

Taking executive action flies in the face of this constitutional process.

It is Mr. Adityanath’s responsibility to ensure public order while allowing people to express themselves, not to maintain it by curtailing expression altogether.