The Punjab and Haryana High Court has allowed Zee5 to release its controversial documentary centered on gangster networks, while simultaneously directing the platform to strip certain words from the project’s title. The Court made it clear that the documentary cannot carry the expressions “Lawrence,” “Bishnoi,” or “Punjab” in its final name, trailer, or promotional material.
Justice Jagmohan Bansal, after personally viewing the documentary, concluded that the production did not celebrate criminality or project gangsters as heroic figures. Instead, the Court observed that the documentary paints a grim picture of organized crime and the destruction it leaves behind.
According to the ruling, the documentary is not focused solely on one individual. Rather, it examines multiple gangs and their operations using publicly available material, supplemented by commentary from retired police officials, journalists, and a lawyer. The Court noted that none of the interviewees attempted to romanticize violence or criminal lifestyles.
The Bench remarked that the overall message emerging from the documentary was that the life of a gangster is short-lived and devastating, not only for those involved but also for many others affected by crime.
The dispute erupted after the Union government advised Zee5 against releasing the documentary, originally titled Lawrence of Punjab, reportedly linked to alleged gangster Lawrence Bishnoi. Punjab Police had raised concerns that the content could disturb public order, while Punjab Congress chief Amarinder Singh Raja Warring also challenged the release before the High Court.
Zee Entertainment Enterprises later approached the Court seeking cancellation of the advisory, arguing that the documentary’s purpose was not to glorify crime.
During the proceedings, the Court questioned the legal foundation of the Centre’s advisory. It pointed out that the communication did not invoke any specific provision under the Information Technology Act or any other statute.
The Bench observed that although authorities borrowed language from Section 69A of the IT Act — which empowers the government to block online content in the interest of sovereignty, security, defence, or public order — they failed to formally record why blocking the documentary was necessary or expedient in this case.
The Court further noted that the advisory heavily relied on a communication from the Punjab Director General of Police, which itself referred to earlier High Court orders restricting the circulation of interviews involving Lawrence Bishnoi and discouraging glorification of crime. However, the judge found that the documentary neither featured those interviews nor violated the spirit of the earlier orders.
Another significant observation in the judgment was that the government could not identify any specific breach of the Code of Ethics applicable to digital content platforms. The Court said the authorities merely expressed apprehension that the documentary might glorify a gang or gangster, but failed to demonstrate how the actual content crossed that line.
Justice Bansal also underlined that much of the material discussed in the documentary already exists in the public domain. Given that context, the Court said it would be difficult to argue that the documentary alone posed a serious threat to public order or public safety.
The Bench additionally distinguished the documentary from fictional crime dramas, stressing that it was not a cinematic portrayal with actors performing stylized gangster roles. The judgment also referenced the large number of violent films and web series already circulating publicly, including mainstream Hindi films based on gangland stories.
Ultimately, the Court ruled that the documentary was unlikely to provoke violence, encourage criminal behavior, or entice viewers toward gangster culture. With those findings, the advisory restraining its release was set aside.
