Section 375
The 2019 Indian film "Section 375" delves into the intricate and often contentious interpretations of India's rape laws, specifically Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code. It presents a gripping courtroom drama that forces audiences to confront uncomfortable questions about consent, justice, and the blurred lines between truth and perception in high-profile cases. This film is more than just entertainment; it's a profound cinematic exploration of legal ethics and societal pressures. The film provocatively explores the legal definition of consent, highlighting how nuanced interpretations can dramatically alter a case's outcome. It presents a compelling clash of legal philosophies, questioning whether a lawyer's duty is solely to the law or also to the abstract concept of justice. "Section 375" unflinchingly exposes the powerful influence of public sentiment and media scrutiny on judicial proceedings, even in the face of complex evidence.
AI Summary
The 2019 Indian film "Section 375" delves into the intricate and often contentious interpretations of India's rape laws, specifically Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code. It presents a gripping courtroom drama that forces audiences to confront uncomfortable questions about consent, justice, and the blurred lines between truth and perception in high-profile cases. This film is more than just entertainment; it's a profound cinematic exploration of legal ethics and societal pressures.
- The film provocatively explores the legal definition of consent, highlighting how nuanced interpretations can dramatically alter a case's outcome.
- It presents a compelling clash of legal philosophies, questioning whether a lawyer's duty is solely to the law or also to the abstract concept of justice.
- "Section 375" unflinchingly exposes the powerful influence of public sentiment and media scrutiny on judicial proceedings, even in the face of complex evidence.
A Case That Gripped a Nation
Our story begins with Rohan Khurana, a renowned film director, facing a grave accusation: rape. Anjali Dangle, his assistant costume designer, claims he assaulted her, leading to his swift conviction by a sessions court. But the legal battle is far from over—it's just moving to a much bigger stage.
Clash of Ideologies: The Lawyers
In the High Court, two formidable legal minds go head-to-head. Representing Rohan is the brilliant and pragmatic criminal barrister, Tarun Saluja. His opponent is Hiral Gandhi, a fervent prosecutor and former trainee of Saluja, driven by a utopian belief in justice for the victim. Their professional rivalry is deeply personal, rooted in conflicting views of the law.
Saluja operates on a clear principle: "Law is a fact, Justice is abstract." He believes a lawyer's role is to argue the facts of the law, not to get entangled in emotional or ethical debates about justice. For him, legal practice is a business, and outcomes depend on astute argumentation, not moral righteousness.
Hiral, however, embodies the pursuit of true justice. She is passionately involved in her cases, viewing law as a tool to protect the vulnerable and ensure fairness. This fundamental difference in philosophy once led her to leave Saluja's firm, setting the stage for their dramatic confrontation in court.
Unraveling the Narrative: The Defense's Strategy
As the trial unfolds, Saluja meticulously cross-examines key witnesses, exposing inconsistencies and questioning the integrity of the evidence. He suggests that what appears to be a clear-cut case of sexual assault might be something far more complicated: an affair gone sour, twisted into a revenge plot.
Saluja posits that Anjali and Rohan had a consensual relationship, initially spurred by career pressure, which evolved into deeper emotional involvement on Anjali's part. When Rohan made it clear he wasn't interested in marriage, a heated argument ensued, culminating in her humiliation and his callous dismissal of her career prospects.
According to the defense, Anjali, feeling scorned and discarded, later reconciled with Rohan. However, in an act of revenge, she subsequently reported the incident as rape. Saluja's argument hinges on the idea that prior consensual relations complicate the narrative, challenging the simplistic portrayal of victim and perpetrator.
The Core Legal Question: What is Consent?
The heart of the case centers on Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code, which defines rape. Saluja argues that if a sexual encounter is consensual, even if the relationship ends badly, it does not constitute rape. He emphasizes the legal definition of consent and its presence—or absence—at the moment of the alleged act.
Hiral counters powerfully, asserting that previous consensual relations do not automatically imply consent for every subsequent encounter. She stresses that any sexual act without explicit, ongoing consent from the woman is legally considered rape, challenging the traditional, often patriarchal, interpretations of such relationships.
Justice on Trial: Public Sentiment vs. Legal Precedent
The two High Court judges find themselves in an unenviable position. On one hand, Saluja's arguments have undeniably poked significant holes in the accuser's story, suggesting a potential false charge driven by personal vendetta. On the other, a strong public outcry demands justice for the perceived exploitation of the underprivileged by the powerful.
As protests rage outside the courthouse, the judges grapple with their decision. A ruling in favor of Rohan, despite circumstantial evidence pointing to manipulated charges, could be seen as upholding impunity for the elite and ignoring the victim's plight. The weight of public opinion casts a long shadow over their chambers, influencing their deliberation.
The Verdict and its Aftermath
Ultimately, the bench acknowledges the merits of Tarun's defense. However, swayed by public sentiment and the lack of explicit evidence of consent or force for the specific incident, they decide to adhere strictly to the victim's statement as paramount evidence, upholding the initial conviction. Rohan is sent to prison, much to his wife's dismay and abandonment.
In a shocking twist, Anjali later privately confesses to Hiral that Saluja's theory was true—she fabricated the rape charge for revenge. This revelation leaves Hiral stunned, forcing her to confront the complex reality that justice, as she understood it, can be deeply flawed and manipulated. Saluja's cynical mantra, "We're in the business of law, not of Justice," echoes with new meaning.
A Critical and Commercial Success
Released in September 2019, "Section 375" was widely praised by critics for its taut screenplay, incisive dialogues, and powerful performances from its lead cast, Akshaye Khanna and Richa Chadda. Reviewers lauded its courage to tackle a sensitive and complex issue without resorting to melodrama.
The film proved to be both a critical and a modest commercial success, earning over 153 million Indian rupees. More importantly, it sparked crucial conversations about the nuances of consent, the role of legal professionals, and the profound impact of public perception on the judicial process in India.
Article
Section 375
Section 375: Marzi Ya Zabardasti? (transl. Section 375: Will or Force?), better known simply as Section 375, is a 2019 Indian Hindi-language legal thriller film directed by Ajay Bahl, written by Manish Gupta and produced by Kumar Mangat Pathak and Abhishek Pathak. It is based on Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code. The film stars Akshaye Khanna, Richa Chadda, Meera Chopra and Rahul Bhat. Principal photography of the film began in January 2019.
The film was theatrically released in India on 13 September 2019.
Plot
Section 375
Notable film director Rohan Khurana is arrested and convicted by a sessions court after assistant costume designer Anjali Dangle accuses him of rape. In the High Court, senior and talented criminal barrister Tarun Saluja works hard to punch holes in the accuser's claims, while Hiral Gandhi, a utopian and fervent lawyer fighting her first big case, who was once Saluja's trainee, serves as the prosecutor and defence barrister of the claimed victim. Tarun goes by his principle Law is a fact, Justice is abstract and believes that a lawyer should not get emotionally involved in a case or get into an ethical debate. At a seminar in a flashback, also attended by Hiral, he surmises how justice is left out without proper defence, noting that the pursuit of justice is nothing but a career opportunity for the defence lawyer, prosecution & the judges as well. He summarises this with his line "We're in the business of law, not of Justice". This is completely contrary to Hiral's belief, as she gets passionately involved in her pursuit to deliver justice. For this very reason, she had to quit Tarun's law firm in the past.
Tarun in his cross-examination exposes tampering of evidence, lies and facts hidden by key witnesses. He proposes that Anjali had a consensual relation with Rohan which started with the pressure of retaining her job, but with time she got emotionally involved in the relationship. Later, when she realises that Rohan is only interested in a physical relationship with her whereas she was expecting him marry her, there is a big argument between the two on this issue. Rohan belittles her and tells her that without him her career is over. Later, Rohan throws her out of his second flat where they pursued their relationship. After a couple of days, Anjali apologises to Rohan & they rekindle their relationship. Later in the day, she reports this incident as rape to police.
Insisting that it is a case of an affair gone sour, Tarun points out that the law does not regard consensual physical relations as rape. Hiral argues that though a couple may have had a consensual relationship in the past, any subsequent sexual encounter without consent of the girl is rape. The case disputes the legal provisions of the penal code's section 375 that defines conditions under which a sexual offence can be defined as rape.
The judges are put in a tough spot because on one hand, it is clear that Anjali had filed this case to avenge her humiliation, and on the other hand, there is a strong public perception that rich and influential people are exploiting the underprivileged. The two judges deliberate on the case in their chamber. A judgement in favour of Tarun would reflect badly on their credentials, despite circumstantial evidence clearly pointing to false rape charges. One of the judges peeks from the balcony and sees protests against the accused going out of control, and it is clear what their judgement would be.
The bench, while delivering the verdict accepts the merit of the case presented by Tarun, but public sentiment forces the bench to strictly go by the book and deliver the judgment in line with popular opinion. The judges uphold the session court judgement which states that since there is no evidence of consent or force for this particular incident, the statement of the victim is considered as paramount evidence. Rohan's wife Kainaz indicates to him that she will not aid him anymore, and leaves. Tarun promises Rohan that he will approach the Supreme Court immediately. Rohan is taken to prison, and Anjali confesses in secret to Hiral that what Tarun had said in the court was true and she did this only to get revenge on Rohan. Hiral is shocked by this, and is later invited for dinner by Tarun's family. Tarun once again reminds her "We're in the business of law, not of Justice", a principle she has now truly understood.
Cast
Section 375
• Akshaye Khanna as Advocate Tarun Saluja, defence barrister of the accused • Richa Chadda as Advocate Hiral Gandhi, The public prosecutor • Meera Chopra as Anjali Vasudev Dangle • Rahul Bhat as Rohan Ravi Khurana • Shriswara as Kainaz Khurana, Rohan's wife • Sandhya Mridul as Shilpa Saluja, Tarun's wife • Kruttika Desai as Justice Indrani • Kishor Kadam as Justice Madgaonkar • Annuup Choudhari as Pramod Dangle, Anjali's brother • Tanuka Laghate as Meera Singh • Kshama Ninave as Mrs. Dangle, Anjali's mother • Nishank Verma as Shekhar • Karran Jeet as Hiral's husband (uncredited) • Riva Arora as Roshini, Tarun,s daughter
Marketing and release
Section 375
The first poster of the film was released by its makers on 7 August 2019. On 5 September, a dialogue promo presenting Khanna was released.
The film was premiered at Singapore South Asian International Film Festival (SgSAIFF) on 7 September 2019. It was closing film of the festival and received appreciation. The film was theatrically released in India on 13 September 2019.
Reception
Critical response
On review aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes, the film holds a rating of 64% based on 11 reviews, with an average rating of 7/10.
Sreeparna Sengupta of The Times of India gave the film four stars out of five, praising screenplay, dialogues and performance of Akshaye Khanna, Richa Chadha, Rahul Bhat and Kishor Kadam, noted that the film made for a 'gripping watch with a crisp runtime and top-notch performances'. Concluding she wrote, "Overall, Section 375 is an audacious effort. It is a relevant film that tackles a complex issue and one that will engage, inform and open up debates." Trade analyst and critic Taran Adarsh gave the film four stars out of five, tagged it as "Powerful" and praised the performance of Akshaye Khanna, Richa Chadha, writing and direction. He opined, "A relevant film that raises pertinent points... Recommended!" Udita Jhunjhunwala of Firstpost gave three and half stars out of five and opined that it was the cinematography and editing that kept the film moving at desirable pace and in mood. Praising Manish Gupta's writing, she concluded that the film neither took a shrill, moralistic stand, nor caved to 'Bollywood-ised courtroom hysteria', rather it stuck to a highly charged narrative that deftly examined both sides of the case and deferred to the rule of law.
Devesh Sharma reviewing for Filmfare rates the film with three stars out of five. He wrote that the film was a 'well-crafted', 'well-acted' film with pithy and witty dialogues. He praised performance of Khanna and Chadha, but criticising the climax, concluded, "This criminal twist at the very end undoes all the good done by the film and leaves you with a bitter taste in the mouth. The director is trying to be too clever here but this cleverness eats away into the nobility of the film." Manjusha Radhakrishnan of Gulf News gave three and half stars out of five, concurring in praising lead cast she wrote, "Both Khanna and Chadha are in top form as warring legal counsels". She also praised the editing of the film and noted that film was off-beat, but concurring with Sharma she felt that the second half was made 'frustratingly convenient'. Concluding she opined, "While you may not be thrilled at where the film is headed, the right thing to do is to give the searing Section 375 a fair trial." Writing for News18, Rajeev Masand termed the film as an 'unmistakably compelling courtroom drama' and rated it with three and half stars out of five. He noted that director Ajay Bahl and writer Manish Gupta have made a 'sharp, thought-provoking drama' which is topical and conscious of the situation prevailing. Concluding, he opined, "It’s a well-made film with a persuasive argument that is nevertheless disturbing."
Box office
Section 375 collected ₹14.5 million (US$170,000) on the opening day, and ₹30.7 million (US$360,000) on the second day, whereas the third day collection was ₹35.2 million (US$420,000), taking its total opening weekend collection to ₹80.4 million (US$950,000).
As of 19 September 2019, the film has a collection of ₹153 million (US$1.8 million) in India.