The Satluj Takedown Explained | EduLaw
EduLaw EditorialEduLaw : Beyond the FilesWhy Satluj was removed from ZEE5 India, what ZEE5 said, the Jaswant Singh Khalra story and the legal questions still unanswered.
E EduLaw India's Legal Intelligence Platform EduLaw · Investigative Explainer The Satluj Takedown How a film on Jaswant Singh Khalra was released and then removed. A verified explainer on the release, takedown, censorship history, legal questions and what remains unclear as of 6 July 2026. Reading time · ~14 min Updated 6 July 2026 By the EduLaw Desk Film Certification Freedom of Expression OTT Regulation Punjab Human Rights History Jaswant Singh Khalra SATLUJ Punjab '95 · Ghallughara Frame 03 · ZEE5 · Released 3 July 2026 The Record 06 · 07 · 2026 Available. Then not. Released on ZEE5 in India on 3 July 2026. Made unavailable in India within roughly 48 hours. Platform statement: "unavailable in India until further notice", exploring "every appropriate avenue through due process". Status · Unavailable Trigger · Undisclosed Global · Available Copy link Share Contents Section 01 What happened to Satluj? Satluj , the Diljit Dosanjh-starrer directed by Honey Trehan and earlier titled Punjab '95 , was released on ZEE5 in India on 3 July 2026 after a nearly three-year certification battle. Within roughly 48 hours , the film was made unavailable in India . ZEE5 said the film would be "unavailable in India until further notice" in light of "current developments" and that it was exploring "every appropriate avenue through due process" to bring it back. The film continues to be available on ZEE5 Global outside India. As of 6 July 2026 , no detailed public explanation identifying the precise legal or regulatory trigger for the India-only removal had been disclosed by the platform, the makers or the government. No publicly verified government blocking order, court direction or written regulatory communication has been placed in the public record. STATUS · 6 JULY 2026 · UNAVAILABLE ON ZEE5 INDIA Copy key finding Section 02 The Satluj Timeline Tap each point to expand. Every entry separates what is verified from what remains uncertain. Late 2022 – 2025 · Pre-release A prolonged certification and release struggle Verified The film, originally titled Ghallughara , was submitted to the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) in late 2022. Reports state the CBFC cleared the film with a mandated title change to Punjab '95 and with multiple cuts. The makers appealed to the Bombay High Court. Media reporting variously described the CBFC's demands as around 21 cuts initially and, in later rounds, extending to around 120–127 cuts , which the makers publicly declined to accept. A planned premiere at the 2023 Toronto International Film Festival was withdrawn. Uncertain The full internal record of the CBFC's iterative demands, and the final cut-list at each stage, is not fully public. Sources Variety; Frontline (The Hindu); Article 14; New Lines Magazine. Original title Ghallughara → Punjab '95 Verified The film's first title was Ghallughara , a historic Punjabi term referring to major massacres of Sikhs. The CBFC required a title change; the film was subsequently referred to as Punjab '95 , anchoring it to the year 1995 — when Jaswant Singh Khalra was abducted. Uncertain The precise contents of any written CBFC direction requiring the title change have not been placed in the public record. Just before release Retitled once again as Satluj Verified Director Honey Trehan told Variety : "We could not get the previous title of the film. The title is now 'Satluj'." He also said the film was released in its complete form, "without any cuts or compromises". Uncertain The underlying reason the earlier title could not be retained has not been officially explained by any regulator. 3 July 2026 Release on ZEE5 Verified Satluj began streaming on ZEE5 (and ZEE5 Global) on 3 July 2026 with limited prior promotion. Reviews and public reaction were widely reported in the immediate aftermath. Uncertain Whether the platform anticipated the subsequent restriction is not publicly known. 3–5 July 2026 Public response and discussion Verified National outlets carried reviews, viewer response, and reporting on the film's certification history. Political commentary and civil-liberties commentary followed. Uncertain Any communications between the platform and regulators during this window are not in the public domain. Within ~48 hours Unavailable in India Verified Reports stated that Satluj was pulled from ZEE5's Indian catalogue within about two days of release. The title remained available on ZEE5 Global for viewers outside India. Uncertain Whether the removal was voluntary, licensing-driven, court-directed, regulator-communicated, or issued under a government blocking mechanism has not been publicly confirmed. Sources Variety; Indian Express; India Today; NDTV; Deadline. 5–6 July 2026 ZEE5 public statement Verified ZEE5 issued an Instagram statement saying it "stood firmly" by the film and its creative vision, that the film would be "unavailable in India until further notice" in light of "current developments", and that the platform would continue "exploring every appropriate avenue through due process". A follow-up statement urged audiences not to support piracy. Uncertain The platform did not name any regulator, court, or official order in its statement. 6 July 2026 What remains unclear Verified As of this date, the film is unavailable on ZEE5 India. ZEE5 continues to say it is exploring options. Uncertain Whether any Section 69A blocking order, IT Rules communication, court injunction, licensing dispute, or contractual restriction underlies the removal is not publicly established. This remains unverified unless supported by an official document. Section 03 What ZEE5 actually said Two verifiable statement themes, published on ZEE5's official social channels and reported by multiple outlets. "In light of the current developments, Satluj will be unavailable in India until further notice." ZEE5 · Official statement, 5 July 2026 "We remain committed to exploring every appropriate avenue through due process to bring the film back to our audiences at the earliest opportunity." ZEE5 · Official statement, 5 July 2026 What the statement does not answer Known Unknown The film was released on ZEE5 on 3 July 2026. It became unavailable in India within roughly 48 hours. ZEE5 publicly attributed the restriction to unspecified "current developments". ZEE5 said it stood by the film and would explore options through due process. The film is available on ZEE5 Global for audiences outside India. Whether the removal was voluntary, platform-led, regulator-led or triggered by a legal communication. Whether any formal government or judicial order exists. Whether the restriction is temporary or long-term. Whether access differs by state or region within India. Whether the platform will publicly disclose the underlying reason. Section 04 The man at the centre of the story Jaswant Singh Khalra's investigations, his abduction, and the criminal proceedings that followed remain a documented reference point in India's human-rights jurisprudence. Jaswant Singh Khalra (1952–1995) was a human-rights activist from Punjab and General Secretary of the Human Rights Wing of the Shiromani Akali Dal. During Punjab's counter-insurgency period, Khalra pieced together evidence — largely from municipal cremation registers and firewood-purchase records at cremation grounds in Amritsar, Tarn Taran and Majitha — of what he described as thousands of alleged illegal cremations of persons whose deaths and disappearances had not been formally accounted for. On 16 January 1995, Khalra publicly released his findings in a note titled Disappeared & Cremation Grounds . Rights groups and, later, judicial and quasi-judicial bodies took his documentation seriously. On 6 September 1995 , Khalra was abducted from outside his home in Amritsar. Neighbours later recorded the incident, and the Supreme Court took cognisance of the disappearance within days. In Paramjit Kaur v. State of Punjab , the Supreme Court ordered the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to investigate both Khalra's abduction and the wider allegations of illegal cremations. The CBI's December 1996 report, cited by the National Human Rights Commission proceedings and by human-rights researchers, documented 2,097 illegal cremations at three cremation grounds in Amritsar district alone. The trial court in Patiala convicted six Punjab Police officials on 18 November 2005 for Khalra's abduction and murder. On 16 October 2007 , the Punjab and Haryana High Court enhanced the sentences of four officers to life imprisonment, placing all six convicted men on equal footing. On 11 April 2011 , the Supreme Court upheld the life sentences. Why Khalra matters Documented a category of alleged violations previously undocumented at scale. Established that municipal record-keeping could function as evidence. Case produced one of the rare judicially recognised convictions of serving police officials for a custodial disappearance. Continues to be cited by rights groups and legal researchers. Fact timeline · 1984 – 2011 1984 – 1994 Alleged illegal cremations documented and later investigated by rights groups and judicial bodies during Punjab's counter-insurgency period. 16 Jan 1995 Khalra publicly releases findings from cremation and firewood records. 6 Sep 1995 Khalra abducted from outside his home in Kabir Park, Amritsar. 11 Sep 1995 Supreme Court initiates habeas corpus proceedings. 15 Nov 1995 Supreme Court directs the CBI to investigate the abduction and the wider cremation allegations. Dec 1996 CBI report records 2,097 illegal cremations at three cremation grounds in Amritsar district. 18 Nov 2005 Trial court convicts six Punjab Police officials. 16 Oct 2007 Punjab & Haryana High Court enhances sentences to life imprisonment for the remaining four convicts. 11 Apr 2011 Supreme Court upholds life sentences for all six convicted officials. Historical record · Reliable source notes + Key documentation is available in Ensaaf's material on the Punjab Mass Cremations Case, Human Rights Watch's Protecting the Killers (2007), Amnesty International's India: A Mockery of Justice (1998), and archived Supreme Court and CBI records referenced in reporting by Frontline , Indian Express , India Today and academic writing on Punjab. Specific figures should be attributed to their source and read with the context in which they were compiled. Section 05 From Punjab '95 to Satluj Three names on the way to release — Ghallughara, Punjab '95, Satluj. A title change does not alter the film's underlying historical subject. Earlier title Punjab '95 Historically direct. The year 1995 anchors the film to Khalra's abduction and to a documented reference point in India's human-rights record. → Released as Satluj A river and cultural signifier tied to Punjab. Director Honey Trehan said the earlier title could not be retained; the film was released in its uncut form. Editorial note The title change should not be treated as proof of a particular legal demand unless explicitly verified through an official direction. What can be said is that the certification journey involved multiple titles and, per publicly available reporting, prolonged back-and-forth over cuts. Section 06 Why certification is not the same as continued availability Three distinct legal moments — often collapsed in public conversation — need to be separated. 01 Film certification Certification under the Cinematograph Act, 1952 and CBFC guidelines primarily concerns public exhibition of films. It regulates the moment a film is cleared for release, typically for theatres. Certification questions and platform-availability questions can overlap but are not identical. 02 OTT platform availability Streaming platforms operate under a separate framework — the IT Act, 2000 and the IT Rules, 2021 . Platforms also make independent licensing, territorial and compliance decisions. Availability can vary by country, and sometimes by region. 03 Later removal or restriction A title may be released and later become unavailable. The legal basis for such removal depends on facts that must be publicly known or disclosed. The mere fact of a takedown does not, on its own, establish which legal pathway triggered it. Certification → Release → Availability → Removal Step 01 Certification → Step 02 Release → Step 03 Availability → Step 04 Removal Tap any stage above to see its legal significance. Section 07 The legal framework behind the controversy Only verified and relevant law as of 6 July 2026. No assertion here should be read as attributing a specific legal act to any party in the Satluj matter. A · Constitution of India Article 19(1)(a) Guarantees the freedom of speech and expression, which the Supreme Court has recognised as covering artistic and cinematic expression. B · Constitution of India Article 19(2) Permits reasonable restrictions on that freedom on specified grounds — including sovereignty, public order, decency and incitement to an offence. Restrictions must be prescribed by law and be reasonable. C · Statute Cinematograph Act, 1952 Establishes the certification framework administered by the CBFC. Its historical focus is on films intended for public exhibition. Its direct application to purely OTT-first content is more limited and should not be overstated. D · Statute Information Technology Act, 2000 Provides the statutory backbone for internet regulation in India. Sections cover intermediaries, offences, and blocking mechanisms. Application to any specific case requires a specific legal action, not inference. E · Delegated legislation IT Rules, 2021 Introduces a Code of Ethics and a three-tier grievance redressal structure for publishers of online curated content: self-regulation, an industry self-regulatory body, and an oversight mechanism led by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting. These Rules do not, in themselves, authorise any specific takedown; a specific process must be shown. F · Section 69A, IT Act Blocking powers require legal process Section 69A of the IT Act empowers the government to block content in the interest of specified grounds, subject to procedure and confidentiality safeguards under the 2009 Blocking Rules. No publicly verified Section 69A order relating to Satluj was in the public domain as of 6 July 2026. Five possible pathways · none publicly confirmed in Satluj This is not a claim about what happened. It is a legally accurate menu of the possibilities a researcher would ordinarily examine. 1 · Platform decision An internal editorial or business call to withdraw the title. Not confirmed 2 · Contract or licensing A licensing dispute or territorial rights issue between the platform and the rights-holder. Not confirmed 3 · Court direction An injunction or order from a court in a civil or writ proceeding. Not confirmed 4 · Regulatory communication A communication under the IT Rules, 2021 framework — for example via the grievance mechanism or oversight structure. Not confirmed 5 · Government blocking A formal blocking direction under Section 69A of the IT Act, following its statutory procedure. Not confirmed Section 08 The verified record and the unanswered questions A discipline of separation: what is on the public record as of 6 July 2026 versus what is not. Verified Not established Satluj was released on ZEE5 on 3 July 2026. Within roughly 48 hours it was made unavailable in India. ZEE5 issued a public statement citing "current developments". ZEE5 said it was exploring options through "due process" to bring the film back. The film continues to stream on ZEE5 Global outside India. The film is inspired by the life and work of Jaswant Singh Khalra. The project had a prolonged certification history involving multiple title changes and reported CBFC objections. Whether a government order directed the takedown. Whether a court order exists. Whether any Section 69A process was invoked. Whether the restriction is temporary or long-term. Whether the removal was licensing-driven, regulator-driven, politically driven, or internal to the platform. Whether a detailed written reason has been given to viewers. Whether any state-level intervention was involved. Section 09 Cinema, public memory and platform power Beyond one film, the episode raises questions about transparency where historical storytelling, platform governance and public access intersect. For filmmakers A reminder that release does not equal safe distribution. Storytelling on historically contested subjects can face friction at multiple points — certification, release, and post-release availability. For platforms Public trust is enhanced when takedown decisions are accompanied by a clear stated basis — legal, contractual or editorial — and when viewers know which regulatory or judicial pathway (if any) has been engaged. For audiences A subscription does not guarantee continued access to any specific title. Consumer protection questions around communication and refunds may arise when catalogue changes occur soon after release. For public memory Historical events retain their importance regardless of a title's availability. The judicial record on the Khalra case, and the underlying investigations, are documented independently of any film. Section 10 Public reaction map Attributed positions in summary form. Opinions are labelled as such. Public reaction does not establish the legal reason for removal. Filmmakers & actors Director Honey Trehan and lead actor Diljit Dosanjh publicly framed the film as a truthful tribute to Khalra; Trehan confirmed the film was released in its uncut form. · Statements Punjab political voices Several Punjab-based political figures publicly criticised the removal and called for the film to be restored to Indian audiences. · Opinion Civil liberties Commentators noted the recurring pattern of prolonged certification battles for films on politically sensitive subjects, urging platforms and regulators to be transparent about takedown reasoning. · Opinion Viewers Reviews, including a four-star review in India Today , were largely positive; many viewers said they had been unable to complete watching before the title was withdrawn. · Reporting Platform response ZEE5 said it stood by the film, urged audiences not to support piracy, and said it was exploring due-process avenues to restore the title. · Statement Note Public reaction is a legitimate part of the story, but it does not, by itself, establish the legal basis for the removal. Section 11 Interactive legal glossary Tap any term to expand. Certification + The statutory clearance of a film for public exhibition, primarily under the Cinematograph Act, 1952 through the CBFC. Takedown + The removal of specific content from a platform. May result from platform decisions, contractual reasons, court orders, or regulatory or government directions. Geo-blocking + Restricting content access based on the user's geographic location. Availability differences between ZEE5 India and ZEE5 Global are a live example. Section 69A, IT Act + Empowers the government to block content in the interest of specified grounds, subject to procedure under the 2009 Blocking Rules. OTT platform + Over-the-top streaming service delivering audiovisual content over the internet. In India, includes services like ZEE5, and is regulated in part under the IT Rules, 2021. Intermediary + Under the IT Act, an entity that receives, stores or transmits electronic records on behalf of another. Different obligations apply to significant intermediaries and to publishers of online curated content. Online curated content + Films, series and similar content curated and made available by a publisher on a subscription or transactional basis. Regulated under Part III of the IT Rules, 2021. Reasonable restrictions + Restrictions on Article 19(1)(a) rights permissible under Article 19(2). Must be prescribed by law and be reasonable and proportionate. Due process + Adherence to established legal procedure. In the OTT context, this includes clear grounds, notice where applicable and access to legal remedies. Public interest storytelling + Creative work engaging with matters of public concern — history, human rights, governance — that carries both expressive and informational value. Section 12 Frequently asked questions Was Satluj banned in India? As of 6 July 2026, no official government order banning Satluj had been publicly disclosed. The film was released on ZEE5 on 3 July 2026 and became unavailable in India within about 48 hours. ZEE5 said it was "unavailable in India until further notice" and that it was exploring avenues to bring it back. The precise legal or regulatory trigger has not been publicly disclosed. This remains unverified unless supported by an official document. What did ZEE5 say about Satluj? ZEE5 said the film would be "unavailable in India until further notice" in light of "current developments" and that the platform would continue "exploring every appropriate avenue through due process" to bring it back. In a follow-up statement, ZEE5 urged viewers not to support piracy. Was Satluj previously called Punjab '95? Yes. Reports state the film was originally titled Ghallughara, later cleared by the CBFC with a mandated title change to Punjab '95, and eventually released on ZEE5 as Satluj on 3 July 2026. Who was Jaswant Singh Khalra? A human-rights activist from Punjab whose investigations documented alleged illegal cremations during the counter-insurgency period. He was abducted on 6 September 1995. Six Punjab Police personnel were later convicted for his abduction and murder; the Supreme Court upheld their life sentences in 2011. Why was the film controversial? The film revisits a politically sensitive period in Punjab's history and depicts allegations of enforced disappearances and illegal cremations investigated by Khalra. Reports state the CBFC sought extensive cuts and multiple title changes before certification, delaying release for years. Is film certification the same as OTT availability? No. Certification under the Cinematograph Act primarily concerns public exhibition of films. OTT curated content is governed by a separate framework under the IT Act, 2000 and the IT Rules, 2021, along with platforms' own licensing and compliance decisions. Can an OTT platform remove a film after release? Yes. Platforms can remove titles for various reasons — internal editorial decisions, licensing changes, court directions, regulatory communications, or government blocking orders. The specific basis in any case must be publicly disclosed or verified before it can be asserted. Does a Section 69A order exist in the Satluj matter? No publicly verifiable Section 69A blocking order relating to Satluj was in the public domain as of 6 July 2026. This remains unverified unless supported by an official document. What laws govern OTT content in India? The Information Technology Act, 2000 and the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 apply. Publishers of online curated content must observe the Code of Ethics and participate in a three-tier grievance redressal structure. What remains unclear as of 6 July 2026? Whether the removal was voluntary, platform-led, regulator-led, or triggered by a legal communication; whether any formal order exists; whether the restriction is temporary; whether any court filing has been made public; and whether a detailed written reason will be shared with viewers. Section 13 What to watch next 01 Whether ZEE5 issues a fuller statement identifying the underlying legal or regulatory basis. 02 Whether the film is restored for Indian viewers, and on what terms. 03 Whether any court filing, official order or regulatory communication becomes public. 04 Whether the makers or the platform challenge the restriction through legal proceedings. 05 Whether the episode results in wider debate over transparency in OTT removals. Section 14 Sources and methodology Source hierarchy: official platform statements → court judgments and official legal materials → statutes and government rules → reputed national reporting → human-rights organisations and historical documentation. ZEE5 · Official statement (via Instagram, 5 July 2026) Primary source for the platform's stated position, wording of the restriction and the "due process" commitment. Accessed 6 July 2026 · Supports: platform statement facts Variety · "Diljit Dosanjh's 'Satluj' Pulled From India by ZEE5" (5 July 2026) Detailed reporting including the full ZEE5 statement and Honey Trehan's confirmation of the retitling. Accessed 6 July 2026 · Supports: chronology, statements variety.com India Today · Satluj OTT removal & Khalra case explainer (6 July 2026) Reporting on the removal, ZEE5's follow-up on piracy, and a detailed historical explainer on the Khalra case and criminal proceedings. Accessed 6 July 2026 · Supports: chronology, historical timeline indiatoday.in Indian Express · Reporting on release and removal (July 2026) National reporting on Satluj's release and subsequent removal from ZEE5 India. Accessed 6 July 2026 · Supports: chronology NDTV · Video/report on Satluj removal (5 July 2026) Contemporaneous national reporting confirming the removal within two days of release. Accessed 6 July 2026 · Supports: chronology ndtv.com Frontline (The Hindu) · Honey Trehan interview on CBFC cuts Director's on-record statements about the certification battle. Accessed 6 July 2026 · Supports: certification history frontline.thehindu.com Human Rights Watch · Protecting the Killers (2007) Third-party documentation of the Punjab counter-insurgency period, including material on Khalra's investigations. Accessed 6 July 2026 · Supports: historical context hrw.org Ensaaf · The Murder of Human Rights Defender Jaswant Singh Khalra Documentation of the Khalra case and criminal proceedings; also a source on the CBI's 1996 report figures. Accessed 6 July 2026 · Supports: conviction history ensaaf.org Amnesty International · India: A Mockery of Justice (1998) Contemporary international human-rights documentation on the Khalra abduction. Accessed 6 July 2026 · Supports: historical context Constitution of India · Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(2) Primary constitutional text on freedom of expression and reasonable restrictions. Accessed 6 July 2026 · Supports: legal framework Cinematograph Act, 1952 Primary statute governing film certification in India. Accessed 6 July 2026 · Supports: certification framework IT Act, 2000 & IT Rules, 2021 Statutory basis for blocking directions, intermediary obligations, and the framework for publishers of online curated content. Accessed 6 July 2026 · Supports: OTT regulation meity.gov.in Section 15 The core issue is clarity This article does not assume that Satluj was formally banned by the government. As of 6 July 2026, the publicly verified position is narrower: the film was released on ZEE5, became unavailable in India shortly afterward, and ZEE5 said it was exploring ways to bring it back. The precise legal or regulatory trigger had not been publicly explained in detail. Until that clarity arrives — through an official statement, a written order, or a court record — the honest answer is to say what is known, say what is not, and refuse to treat inference as fact. Copy article link Contents Quick answer The timeline What ZEE5 said Who was Khalra? Title change Certification ≠ availability Legal framework Known vs unknown Why it matters Reaction map Glossary FAQ Watch next Sources Editorial note EduLaw · All Rights Reserved Timeline Legal FAQs Copied (function(){ // Progress bar const progress = document.getElementById('progress'); const onScroll = () => { const h = document.documentElement; const scrolled = (h.scrollTop) / (h.scrollHeight - h.clientHeight); progress.style.width = Math.min(100, Math.max(0, scrolled * 100)) + '%'; }; document.addEventListener('scroll', onScroll, {passive:true}); onScroll(); // Theme toggle const themeBtn = document.getElementById('themeBtn'); const stored = localStorage.getItem('edulaw-theme'); if(stored === 'dark') document.documentElement.setAttribute('data-theme','dark'); themeBtn.addEventListener('click', () => { const cur = document.documentElement.getAttribute('data-theme') === 'dark' ? '' : 'dark'; if(cur) document.documentElement.setAttribute('data-theme','dark'); else document.documentElement.removeAttribute('data-theme'); localStorage.setItem('edulaw-theme', cur); }); // Print document.getElementById('printBtn').addEventListener('click', () => window.print()); // Timeline expand document.querySelectorAll('.tl-item .tl-btn').forEach(btn => { btn.addEventListener('click', () => { const item = btn.parentElement; const open = item.classList.toggle('open'); btn.setAttribute('aria-expanded', open ? 'true' : 'false'); }); }); // Known/Unknown tabs document.querySelectorAll('.ku-tab').forEach(tab => { tab.addEventListener('click', () => { document.querySelectorAll('.ku-tab').forEach(t => {t.classList.remove('active');t.setAttribute('aria-selected','false')}); document.querySelectorAll('.ku-panel').forEach(p => p.classList.remove('active')); tab.classList.add('active'); tab.setAttribute('aria-selected','true'); document.getElementById(tab.dataset.panel).classList.add('active'); }); }); // Accordion document.querySelectorAll('.acc-item .acc-head').forEach(h => { h.addEventListener('click', () => { const item = h.parentElement; const open = item.classList.toggle('open'); h.setAttribute('aria-expanded', open ? 'true' : 'false'); }); }); // Flow diagram const tip = document.getElementById('stageTip'); document.querySelectorAll('#flow .stage').forEach(s => { s.addEventListener('click', () => { tip.textContent = s.dataset.tip; tip.classList.add('open'); }); s.addEventListener('keypress', e => { if(e.key === 'Enter') s.click(); }); }); // Glossary document.querySelectorAll('.term').forEach(t => { const toggle = () => t.classList.toggle('open'); t.addEventListener('click', toggle); t.addEventListener('keypress', e => { if(e.key === 'Enter' || e.key === ' ') { e.preventDefault(); toggle(); }}); }); // Impact cards document.querySelectorAll('.impact').forEach(c => { c.addEventListener('click', () => c.style.borderColor = 'var(--burgundy)'); }); // Copy buttons const toast = document.getElementById('toast'); const showToast = (msg) => { toast.textContent = msg; toast.classList.add('show'); setTimeout(()=>toast.classList.remove('show'), 1800); }; document.querySelectorAll('[data-copy]').forEach(b => { b.addEventListener('click', async () => { try { await navigator.clipboard.writeText(b.dataset.copy); showToast('Copied to clipboard'); } catch(e){ showToast('Copy not supported'); } }); }); // Share const doShare = async () => { const data = { title: 'The Satluj Takedown — EduLaw', text: 'A verified legal explainer on the Satluj removal from ZEE5 India.', url: window.location.href }; if(navigator.share){ try { await navigator.share(data); } catch(e){} } else { try { await navigator.clipboard.writeText(data.url); showToast('Link copied'); } catch(e){ showToast('Copy the URL from address bar'); } } }; document.getElementById('shareBtn').addEventListener('click', doShare); const s2 = document.getElementById('shareBtn2'); if(s2) s2.addEventListener('click', doShare); // TOC active state (scroll spy) const sections = Array.from(document.querySelectorAll('main section')); const links = Array.from(document.querySelectorAll('.toc a')); const spy = () => { const y = window.scrollY + 120; let current = sections[0]; sections.forEach(s => { if(s.offsetTop l.classList.toggle('active', l.getAttribute('href') === '#' + current.id)); }; document.addEventListener('scroll', spy, {passive:true}); spy(); })();