Critics of the ban on 'Satluj' argue that the government's move represents an overreach that stifles artistic expression and prevents the public from engaging with critical historical narratives. Opponents of the decision contend that the film, which explores the life of activist Jaswant Singh Khalra and the documented history of human rights abuses, is a legitimate work of cinema that should be protected under the principles of free speech. They express concern that the use of vague terms like 'sovereignty' and 'security' to justify the removal of content creates a chilling effect on filmmakers and streaming platforms, discouraging them from tackling complex or uncomfortable social and political issues.
From this perspective, the government's reliance on the IT Rules to bypass the traditional certification process undermines the transparency of the regulatory system. Critics argue that if the state has concerns about specific content, these should be addressed through established legal channels rather than through summary bans that effectively censor the work without a public trial or clear explanation. Furthermore, many observers note that the film remains available to international audiences, highlighting the irony of a domestic ban that only restricts Indian viewers from accessing a story about their own history. For these stakeholders, the incident underscores a growing trend of administrative censorship that prioritizes political comfort over the public's right to access diverse and challenging perspectives.