Akshay Kumar’s upcoming film — Jolly LLB 2 has landed in soup after the Bombay High Court asked to chop four scenes from the film. The film had already been passed by the Central Board of Film Certification, the primary film certifying board in India. However, after one out-of-the-blue lawyer’s complaint to the Bombay High Court that the film mocks the judiciary and the court-system, the honourable high court decided to set up a three-panel committee to review it.
The matter also went to the Supreme Court which eventually refused to take any action against the reviewing of the movie. As per the final judgement, the makers of Jolly LLB 2 have been asked to do away with the four scenes that ‘defame’ the Indian judiciary. But, has our film industry really made films which don’t take an interesting stance on the judiciary? The court-room dramas have always been an integral part of Hindi cinema. The term ‘andhaa kanoon’ has been beaten hard to justify how our judiciary is not really capable of doing all that it should be capable of. Then, why only Jolly LLB 2 has been picked up? Even its first part, that featured Arshad Warsi in the lead presented a thought which was a question on judgement process of the court. In fact, the 1983 film Andha Kanoon, which had biggies like Amitabh Bachchan, Rajinikanth, Hema Malini, Reena Roy amongst others, was all about the loopholes in our judiciary system and how people, most of the times, fail to get justice. The film witnessed a free run upon its release. Does it mean that the society or judiciary was more acceptable and had better understanding of creative liberty 34 years back as compared to today?
And if the question is about ‘defaming’ judiciary, it is done in every film which consitutes a court-room drama. Isn’t a hero breaking the dock out of rage an example of mocking the judiciary? Isn’t showing the judge being bribed an example of mocking the judiciary? What about the crass language being used in the court which our films show? And the fact that the judge keeps on beating his table saying ‘order-order’ and no one cares to listen to him, doesn’t this defame the judiciary?
For that matter, the kind of lavish court settings that our Hindi films mostly showcase isn’t real at all. The real-life courts are more chaotic, less-managed and abosultely no grand as they show in films. Why did those films which actually presented a wrong portryal of Indian courts on first hand get screened? And oh! remember that one of the most famous Sunny Deol’s dialogues?
In this entire scene, Sunny is trying to justify how our honourable courts are so not capable to deliver justice on time and all that a common man gets is a ‘date’ by the court instead of the justice. Now, should the court review Sunny’s Damini again and ask the makers to chop off this dialogue?
Hasn’t the court mocked itself by even giving a mere film such a huge importance? Doesn’t it show how insecure our judiciary is when it comes to cinema in our nation? What is even the relevance of such a decision when the film has already been passed by the Censor Board? The entire fiasco has further substantiated the fact that cinema has become most vulnerable of all the creative platforms we have in the country. If there’s a film on Rajputs, then Rajput community has got a say in its making. If it’s about judiciary, the judiciary has a say in it. Remove the word ‘barber’ from a film’s title because it might hurt the sentiments of the barber community and chop of ‘mochi’ from a song for there’s a complaint from the cobbler community. How long will this hypocrisy of censoring elements from a film keep going? A film is never made to please all. It is made to be the expression of the society.
Also read: Shah Rukh Khan’s Raees by Rail was an ‘invited’ chaos. Stardom at what cost?
By the way, how could judiciary allow to show ‘underwear connection with court’ in this Govinda-starrer?
Time to make a serious wish to give strength to our cinema for it can fight the undying, unnecessary censorship! Amen.
