Awdesh Kumar Yadav vs Union Of India on 25 February, 2026

Supreme Court – Daily Orders

Awdesh Kumar Yadav vs Union Of India on 25 February, 2026

                                      IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                                       CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION


                                  WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.252 OF 2026



                 AWDESH KUMAR YADAV                                                     PETITIONER


                                                   VERSUS


                 UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS                                              RESPONDENTS


                                                      O R D E R

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are

that the petitioner herein is stated to be the

National President of the Vishwa Yadav Parishad.

The petitioner has approached this Court being

aggrieved by alleged caste and religion-based

stereotyping in the film “Yadav Ji ki Love

Story”, and seeks the issuance of a writ of

mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or

direction restraining the release of the said

film; the issuance of directions to the

Respondent No.2 herein – Central Board Film

Signature Not Verified
Certification (CBFC) to re-examine the content
Digitally signed by
BORRA LM VALLI
Date: 2026.02.26
19:26:11 IST
Reason:
of the said movie in line with Constitutional

1
principles and statutory guidelines; stay of the

release of the said film as well as the issuance

of a direction to Respondent No.3 – Ankit

Bhadana, the producer and director of the said

film to change its title and remove any

references to the Yadav community from the

title.

2. According to the petitioner, the said film

contains prima facie offensive and derogatory

content and portrays a particular caste in a

negative and defamatory manner. That the said

film is likely to invoke caste and social

disharmony and would disturb public order,

resulting in the violation of rights under

Articles 14, 15, 19(2), 21 and 51A(e) of the

Constitution. Hence, the instant writ petition.

3. We have heard learned senior counsel and

learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, at

length.

4. We have also perused the material on

record.

5. The main grievance of the petitioner is

that the name of the forthcoming film “Yadav ji

2
ki love story” reflects the Yadav community in

poor light in the society. Therefore, the

contention of learned senior counsel and learned

counsel for the petitioner is that the title of

the film ought to be changed.

6. We have considered this argument. We fail

to understand as to how the title of a film can

reflect the community in bad light. This, we say

for the reason that the title of the film in

question nowhere has any adjective or any other

appellation which depicts or portrays the

community i.e. the Yadav Community in bad light.

7. We find that the apprehensions expressed by

the learned senior counsel and learned counsel

appearing for the petitioner are wholly

unfounded.

8. In this context we would like to

distinguish our order in an earlier case titled

as “Atul Mishra vs. Union of India & Others”,

Writ Petition (Civil) No.181 of 2026 dated

19.02.2026. In that case, the title of the film

was “Ghooskhor Pandat”. The apprehension

expressed there was that the expression ‘Pandat’

3
related to a particular community and the

expression ‘Ghooskhor’ in English language meant

‘corrupt’. Therefore, a negative meaning has

been attached to a particular community as such.

The respondents in the said case voluntarily

decided to replace the title of the said film by

filing an affidavit of undertaking before this

Court. Consequently, the matter did not call for

any adjudication.

9. However, we find that in the instant case,

there is no such negativity which is attached to

the Yadav community by having such a title of

the film. In the circumstances, we find that

neither of the reasonable restrictions which are

expressed under Article 19(2) of the

Constitution of India are attracted and hence,

we find that the right to free speech and

expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the

Constitution of India must prevail in the

instant case.

10. While re-affirming the judicial precedents

on the issue, we are of the firm view that any

interference by the Court would directly impinge

4
upon the creative freedom of the film maker.

11. We reiterate once again that the name and

title of the film “Yadav ji ki love story” in no

way portraits or denigrates the Yadav community

in poor light or in a negative way in any manner

whatsoever. This film is only a fiction and

therefore, shall remain a fiction.

12. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed.

………………………………………………………, J
(B.V. NAGARATHNA)

…………………………………………………………, J
(UJJAL BHUYAN)
NEW DELHI
FEBRUARY 25, 2026

5
ITEM NO.43 COURT NO.4 SECTION PIL-W

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

WRIT PETITION(S)(CIVIL) NO(S). 252/2026

AWDESH KUMAR YADAV PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. RESPONDENT(S)

FOR ADMISSION

Date : 25-02-2026 This petition was called on for
hearing today.

CORAM : HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S. R. Singh, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Dalganjan Singh Yadav, Adv.
Mr. Aftab Ali Khan, AOR
Mr. Vikrant Singh, Adv.

Mr. Sandeep Malik, Adv.

For Respondent(s) :

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the
following
O R D E R

Writ Petition is dismissed in terms of the

signed order, which is placed on file.

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand

disposed of.

(B. LAKSHMI MANIKYA VALLI) (DIVYA BABBAR)
COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH)

6