Introduction

Cinema in India is not just a form of art or entertainment—it is a cultural phenomenon that shapes public consciousness. Bollywood, with its massive reach, frequently tackles social and legal themes. However, when it portrays lawyers, courts, or legal ethics, it often prioritizes dramatic flair over procedural accuracy. This blog explores Bollywood’s portrayal of the legal system, particularly the role and ethics of lawyers, by analysing landmark films and relevant Indian case law, under the framework of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).

1. The Courtroom as a Stage: Drama vs. Procedure

Bollywood courtrooms are full of theatrics—lawyers shout “Objection!”, judges slam gavels, and surprise witnesses change the course of justice within minutes. While films like Damini (1993) and Pink (2016) tackled serious issues like sexual violence and consent, they often sacrifice procedural accuracy for emotional intensity.

In Pink, Amitabh Bachchan’s character emphasizes that “No means No”—a principle echoed in the Supreme Court’s decision in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Chhotey Lal, AIR 2011 SC 697, where it was held that consent must be unequivocal and voluntary. The film aligns closely with modern legal interpretations of consent, now codified under Section 63 of BNS.

However, these courtroom representations rarely reflect the rules of evidence under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA) or the procedure mandated by the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).

2. Lawyers on the Big Screen: Ethical Crusaders or Comic Relief?

Bollywood often divides lawyers into two tropes: righteous crusaders for justice or manipulative, unethical opportunists. Jolly LLB (2013), a satirical courtroom drama, begins with a morally ambiguous lawyer but transforms him into a justice-seeking advocate. The film was inspired by Hit and Run Case involving Sanjeev Nanda, where delayed justice sparked public outrage.

The sequel, Jolly LLB 2 (2017), drew attention to fake encounters, indirectly reflecting on Prakash Kadam v. Ramprasad Vishwanath Gupta, (2011) 6 SCC 189, where the Supreme Court strongly condemned extra-judicial killings and emphasized that even police are not above the law.

Ethically, lawyers are bound by the Bar Council of India Rules to act with dignity, refrain from misleading the court, and respect client confidentiality.[1] These essential ethical duties are rarely shown in films, which tend to highlight emotional arguments over professional discipline.

3. Legal Fiction and Public Understanding: A Mismatched Reality

The general public’s expectations of the legal system are often molded by cinematic portrayals. Many believe that justice can be achieved through one dramatic hearing, as shown in Mulk (2018), which addresses communal prejudice and the misuse of anti-terror laws.

However, in Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1994 SC 1800, the Supreme Court laid down safeguards against misuse of anti-terror laws, emphasizing due process and fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution. While films like Mulk attempt to humanize those wrongly accused, they oversimplify the legal process.

This results in a gap between cinematic fiction and procedural reality. For instance, real trials require admissibility of evidence under BSA, cross-examination  and adherence to constitutional rights—none of which are accurately depicted in high-speed cinematic trials.

4. Raising Awareness Through Legal Storytelling

Despite their dramatic liberties, some films effectively educate audiences on legal issues. Section 375 (2019) raised questions on the misuse of rape laws and judicial independence. It resonated with Tukaram v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1979 SC 185, a case involving custodial rape where the court’s controversial acquittal led to public outrage and eventual legislative reforms in how rape was defined.

Today, such cases fall under Section 64 of BNS, with expanded definitions and aggravated forms of sexual assault. The film highlighted that judges must decide based on evidence, not public pressure—a concept upheld in Zahira Habibullah Sheikh v. State of Gujarat, (2004) 4 SCC 158, where the Court spoke strongly about the “neutral and detached” role of judges.

Another powerful example is Shahid (2013), based on the life of lawyer Shahid Azmi, who defended terror-accused persons in politically sensitive cases. The film mirrored issues from PUCL v. Union of India, (2005) 2 SCC 436, where the Supreme Court dealt with fake encounter killings and emphasized judicial oversight.

5. Realism vs. Cinematic License

Bollywood frequently ignores the meticulous nature of legal proceedings. For instance, scenes where a lawyer introduces new evidence mid-trial without formal procedure violate established legal norms under Section 64 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, which requires due notice and admissibility.

Additionally, judicial behavior is often misrepresented. Judges in Indian courts rarely speak as freely or emotively as shown in films. In Union Carbide Corporation v. Union of India, AIR 1992 SC 248, the Court criticized the misuse of emotion over substance, reiterating the judiciary’s commitment to rationality and objectivity.

Still, cinematic liberties are sometimes necessary for engagement. However, when misinformation outweighs storytelling, it distorts public legal literacy.

6. Can Cinema Drive Legal Reform?

Films like Pink not only sparked conversations on sexual autonomy but contributed to a wider acceptance of the “affirmative consent” doctrine. In State of Karnataka v. Krishnappa, AIR 2000 SC 1470, the Court observed that the absence of resistance does not imply consent—a position reinforced by modern laws and reflected in cinema.

Cinema has also influenced prison reforms. After Bandit Queen (1994), public outrage over Phoolan Devi’s life led to more scrutiny of custodial violence and women’s rights in prisons, as echoed in Sheela Barse v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1983 SC 378.

Films serve as a mirror to society, and when done responsibly, they can act as instruments of awareness, policy dialogue, and even reform.

Conclusion

Bollywood’s portrayal of lawyers and legal ethics swings between idealism and inaccuracy. While it has the power to humanize complex issues and inspire discourse, it often misrepresents procedural accuracy and ethical duties.

It is essential for legal professionals and viewers to approach such portrayals critically—understanding what is cinematic license and what is legal reality. By doing so, we can bridge the gap between the silver screen and the Supreme Court and move toward a more legally informed society.