Where to Watch Diljit's Banned Movie Satluj?

As Satluj tumbles into a complete removal from public access after a nearly three-year fight with the censor board, the issue has led to a national conversation about censorship and state intervention.

Makers of Satluj (earlier titled Ghallughara and then Punjab '95) had already been through four years of battling the Central Board of Film Certification, which reportedly asked for as many as 127 cuts before it would grant clearance. The makers refused, skipped a theatrical release, and instead put the uncut film directly on ZEE5 on July 3. Less than 48 hours later, on July 5, it disappeared from the platform in India - though it remains available internationally.

Interestingly, the public critique to the development has been more intense than it has to any recent ban. Filmmaker Ram Gopal Varma called Satluj a documentation of one of the darkest chapters in Indian history and praised its performances and restrained, investigative-thriller style storytelling. Director Anurag Basu drew a comparison between director Honey Trehan and Iranian filmmaker Jafar Panahi, who has faced imprisonment and a filmmaking ban in his own country. The movie’s main actor Diljit Dosanjh, meanwhile, said he had expected the takedown and expressed relief that audiences had at least managed to watch the film during its brief window online.

The censor board's growing list of controversies

Satluj has landed in the middle of what critics of CBFC increasingly call a pattern rather than a series of isolated incidents. Barely a month has gone by over the past two years without a fresh CBFC row, and 2025 alone produced a string of them.

The list includes movies like L2: Empuraan, Phule, Dhadak 2, Janaki vs State of Kerala, and even Homebound, which was India's official Oscar entry in 2026.

Piracy fills the gap

Within hours of the takedown, pirated copies of Satluj began circulating on WhatsApp, Telegram and X. ZEE5 issued a public appeal asking viewers not to support piracy while it worked to restore the film "through due process." Diljit Dosanjh, notably, told fans who had already downloaded the film to pass it on, saying the story now belonged to the people - a stance that has split opinion between those backing his defiance and those pointing out that it actively encourages copyright violation.

Interestingly, this expression of dissent by distributing copies of the film lands at a pointed moment. The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting recently gave Telegram a 15-day deadline to clean up rampant film and OTT piracy on its platform, warning of prosecution and channel suspensions under the IT Act if it fails to comply - part of a broader shift from one-off takedowns to holding platforms accountable. Satluj's leak, arriving in the middle of that crackdown, is likely to be an early test of how seriously that directive is enforced.

This isn't the first time a banned film has leaked its way to audiences. When Santosh was blocked from Indian release, pirated versions surfaced online well before its eventual legitimate OTT debut, following much the same pattern now playing out with Satluj.

Legality of screening

The removal has triggered a grassroots response in Punjab. Shiromani Akali Dal president Sukhbir Singh Badal announced that the party would screen Satluj in "every village and corner" of Punjab, directing every SAD worker and office-bearer to organise public showings so that younger generations learn about the events the film depicts.

Beyond SAD, informal public screenings have already begun at gurdwaras and community grounds across Punjab, organised by groups outside any single political banner.

However, the legality regarding the screening of such movies remains in ambiguity. Satluj technically isn't "banned" in the way the word is commonly used. Films released directly on streaming platforms don't need CBFC certification at all since OTT content falls under the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, a self-regulatory, post-publication framework.

ZEE5 has not confirmed any formal government order; reports suggest the platform acted after being cited for security and law-and-order concerns under those IT Rules, using its own internal review mechanism rather than a court or CBFC directive.

A screening organised by a party or community group isn't violating a CBFC prohibition, because none exists for an OTT release. What it could run into is the platform's own rights: ZEE5 holds exclusive streaming rights to Satluj, and public exhibition of the film without the rights holder's authorisation - even from a legitimately purchased copy - would ordinarily require a public performance licence, much like screening any copyrighted film in a public venue.

Organising a mass screening from a pirated or downloaded copy adds a separate layer of copyright infringement liability under the Copyright Act, 1957, and potentially the Cinematograph Act, 1952, regardless of the political intent behind it.

Once a platform like ZEE5 or Lionsgate Play acquires the streaming rights to a film, it becomes the exclusive rights holder for that territory, regardless of whether the film ever had, or was denied, CBFC certification. Screening that film publicly - in a hall, a gurdwara courtyard or a village square - without the platform's permission is a separate legal question from whether the film was "banned" in the first place.

Even a film that is entirely uncensored and lawfully purchased by a viewer is licensed only for private, personal viewing; public exhibition requires separate authorisation from the rights holder. That is the legal tension now sitting underneath the resolution to screen Satluj across Punjab - a political statement that, however sympathetic its cause, may still need ZEE5's sign-off to stand on firm legal ground.

But beyond the conundrums of profit and distribution, who owns a movie? If the cinema doesn't belong to the public, who is it for?