The development comes amid a growing debate over censorship, historical representation and national security concerns linked to the film, which is based on the life of noted human rights activist Jaswant Singh Khalra.

According to reports, the review panel was formed after an appeal by BJP Punjab president Keval Dhillon. BJP leader RP Singh confirmed that the committee would study the film’s content, factual claims and overall presentation before making recommendations. The film had originally been developed under the title Punjab 95 but was later renamed Satluj before its digital release.

The film briefly appeared on an OTT platform before being taken down. Government sources have claimed that the project did not receive the required approval from the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) in its original form. Officials have also cited concerns that certain portions of the film could potentially be misused by anti-India elements.

The removal has sparked sharp reactions from filmmakers, artists and free speech advocates, many of whom argue that the film tells an important chapter of Punjab’s history.

At the centre of the debate is Jaswant Singh Khalra, a human rights activist who became internationally known during the 1990s for raising allegations of large-scale human rights violations in Punjab during the militancy era. Khalra claimed to have uncovered records suggesting that thousands of unidentified bodies had been secretly cremated after alleged fake encounters.

His work attracted national and international attention but also placed him in direct confrontation with powerful institutions.

On September 6, 1995, Khalra was allegedly abducted from outside his residence in Amritsar. His disappearance triggered one of the most significant human rights cases in modern Indian legal history.

What followed was a long and determined legal battle led by his wife, Paramjit Kaur Khalra.

Within a day of the alleged abduction, she lodged a police complaint and began gathering witness accounts. As local investigations failed to provide answers, she approached the Supreme Court through a habeas corpus petition, seeking information about her husband’s whereabouts.

The case gradually exposed serious questions about the conduct of law enforcement agencies. Unsatisfied with the initial responses from Punjab Police, the Supreme Court eventually handed over the investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in November 1995.

For years, Paramjit Kaur continued pursuing the case, coordinating with investigators, collecting evidence and encouraging witnesses to testify despite fears of intimidation.

Her persistence eventually produced results.

In 2005, a CBI court convicted several police personnel in connection with the abduction and murder of Jaswant Singh Khalra. The case continued through appeals in higher courts. In 2007, the Punjab and Haryana High Court upheld key findings and enhanced punishments for some of the convicted officials.

The legal battle finally reached its conclusion in 2011 when the Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s judgment, bringing closure to a struggle that had lasted nearly sixteen years.

Despite the convictions, Paramjit Kaur has repeatedly stated that many questions surrounding her husband’s final moments remain unanswered. She has also continued advocating for families whose relatives allegedly disappeared during the turbulent years of militancy in Punjab.

The renewed attention generated by Satluj has once again brought Khalra’s work and sacrifice into public discussion. While the newly formed review committee examines the film, the larger debate over historical memory, artistic freedom and accountability is likely to continue.

For many observers, the controversy is no longer only about a film. It has reopened conversations about one of Punjab’s most sensitive and contested chapters, and about the people who spent decades seeking answers through the legal system.

Aditya Dhar's ambitious film "Dhurandhar" has landed in hot water following its Netflix release, with viewers expressing fury over significant cuts, muted dialogues, and what many are calling unnecessary censorship. The same movie that received standing ovations during its theatrical run has now become the center of a heated debate about creative freedom on OTT platforms.

The Missing Minutes Mystery

The controversy erupted when eagle-eyed viewers noticed substantial differences between the theatrical and Netflix versions. The original theatrical cut ran for 3 hours, 34 minutes, and 1 second. However, the Netflix version clocks in at just 3 hours and 25 minutes—nearly 9 minutes shorter.

This discrepancy has left audiences questioning what happened to the missing footage and why an adult-rated film on an OTT platform requires such extensive censorship.

A Timeline of Cuts

Understanding the Dhurandhar Netflix controversy requires examining the film's editing history:

Pre-January 1st: The complete theatrical version ran for 3 hours, 34 minutes, and 1 second

Post-January 1st: Following objections from the Baloch community, certain words and dialogues were muted, reducing runtime to 3 hours, 28 minutes, and 56 seconds

Netflix Release: Further cuts brought the runtime down to 3 hours and 25 minutes

Even viewers who watched the edited theatrical version post-January 1st are finding additional cuts on Netflix, raising serious questions about platform censorship policies.

The Censorship Double Standard

The most significant viewer complaint centers on muted dialogues and removed profanity. Despite carrying an A certificate—indicating adult-only content—the Netflix version has undergone heavy censorship.

One glaring example involves Sanjay Dutt's dialogue containing the word "Baloch," which has been completely muted in the streaming version. This creates awkward pauses and disrupts the film's natural flow, pulling viewers out of the narrative.

Social media has erupted with comparisons to other films. "If movies like 'Kabir Singh' and 'Animal' can stream uncut on OTT platforms, why is 'Dhurandhar' being treated differently?" asked one frustrated viewer on Twitter.

Technical Quality Concerns

Beyond censorship issues, viewers have raised concerns about the technical quality of the Netflix release:

Color Grading: The vibrant colors that enhanced the theatrical experience appear noticeably duller on Netflix

Sound Quality: Multiple users report that audio quality seems compressed compared to theater sound systems

Playback Speed: Some viewers feel the film plays slightly faster on Netflix, possibly due to frame rate differences (24fps theatrical vs. 25fps streaming)

The quality degradation is particularly noticeable for subscribers on HD plans, with only 4K plan users reporting satisfactory visual quality.

Why This Matters Now

The Dhurandhar Netflix controversy highlights a growing concern about OTT censorship in India. As streaming platforms become the primary mode of content consumption, questions about creative freedom and censorship standards have taken center stage.

Industry observers note that this incident could set a concerning precedent. If filmmakers cannot present their complete vision even on adult-rated OTT platforms, where can artistic expression find its full form?

The Audience Backlash

Viewers who paid premium ticket prices for the theatrical experience feel particularly cheated. Many had hoped that the OTT release would offer the uncut version they couldn't access in theaters after January 1st. Instead, they received an even more heavily censored product.

"What's the point of going to theaters and buying tickets if OTT platforms are also going to show censored versions?" wrote one angry viewer, capturing the sentiment of thousands.

What Happens Next?

Neither Aditya Dhar nor Netflix has officially commented on the controversy. The silence from both parties has only fueled speculation and frustration among the film's fanbase.

The Dhurandhar Netflix controversy raises fundamental questions about content delivery, censorship standards, and viewer expectations in India's rapidly evolving digital entertainment landscape. As audiences become more discerning and vocal, platforms and filmmakers may need to reconsider their approach to content presentation.

For now, fans of "Dhurandhar" are left wondering if they'll ever see the complete, unfiltered version of the film as Aditya Dhar originally intended.