Introduction
In a significant ruling that balances freedom of artistic expression with professional dignity, the Allahabad High Court dismissed a plea seeking a ban on the release of Jolly LLB 3, the much-anticipated Akshay Kumar-starrer. The petitioners argued that the movie’s trailers and songs derogated the legal profession, lowered the dignity of the judiciary, and discouraged law students from pursuing advocacy. However, the Court found nothing objectionable in the film’s promotional material, observing that such concerns must first be addressed through the appropriate regulatory mechanisms before invoking judicial intervention.
This decision reaffirms the judiciary’s cautious approach in matters concerning cinema, artistic liberty, and censorship, especially when claims of reputational harm to institutions or professions are raised.
Case Background
The petition was filed by Jay Vardhan Shukla and another against the Union of India and six others, challenging the release of Jolly LLB 3. The petitioners submitted that:
- The trailers and teasers of the film allegedly portray the legal profession in a derogatory manner.
- The song “Bhai Vakeel Hai” was said to demean advocates and prejudice the public’s perception of the judiciary.
- Such representations could discourage individuals from joining the profession, disillusion law students, and eventually harm the justice delivery system.
The petitioners claimed that the earlier installments of the Jolly LLB series had already created a negative stereotype of lawyers as corrupt or incompetent, and the latest sequel continued this trend.
The Court’s Observations
The matter was heard by a Division Bench of Justice Sangeeta Chandra and Justice Brij Raj Singh. The Court:
- Personally viewed the trailers and teasers of the film.
- Examined the lyrics of the song “Bhai Vakeel Hai”.
- Concluded that there was nothing objectionable in the content that could be said to harm the legal profession or judiciary.
The Court categorically noted:
“We have also gone through the lyrics of the song Bhai Vakeel Hai and we do not find anything which may interfere in the practice of the legal profession by genuine Advocates.”
Thus, the Court held that the petition did not merit intervention and that the claim of reputational harm was more speculative than real.
Arguments Raised
Petitioner’s Contentions
- The derogatory portrayal in Jolly LLB films tends to lower the dignity of courts in the eyes of the common man.
- Such films prejudice practicing advocates and spread cynicism about the profession.
- By discouraging future lawyers and misrepresenting judicial functioning, the films could undermine public confidence in justice.
Union of India’s Response
- Represented by Deputy Solicitor General SB Pandey, the Union argued that the plea was *not maintainable because:
- The petitioners had not approached the competent authority before filing the writ.
- Under the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, aggrieved persons must first approach the intermediary or publisher of online content.
- The Union submitted that the High Court should not entertain the plea at this premature stage without following the statutory process.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court agreed with the Union’s preliminary objections and emphasized that:
- Petitioners must first exhaust alternative remedies under the IT Rules, 2021 before invoking constitutional writ jurisdiction.
- Courts cannot become the first forum of complaint in cases involving creative works and their public perception.
- Only in exceptional cases where content clearly violates law or morality would judicial intervention be warranted.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the petition, holding that:
“We find from the petition that the petitioners have not yet approached any authority as given under the Rules, 2021. We find the preliminary objection raised by the learned Deputy Solicitor General of India to be of some substance.”
Significance of the Ruling
This judgment highlights three key principles:
1. Freedom of Artistic Expression
Cinema is a form of protected speech under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. Courts have consistently held that films can depict social realities, even if unflattering, so long as they do not violate public order, decency, or morality.
2. Judicial Restraint in Creative Matters
The judiciary has shown reluctance to interfere in artistic works unless there is a clear case of incitement or illegality. Mere dissatisfaction with portrayals or fear of reputational harm cannot justify prior restraint.
3. Regulatory Framework Must Be Followed
The ruling emphasizes that statutory remedies under the Cinematograph Act, 1952 and the IT Rules, 2021 should be pursued first. Courts are not substitutes for regulatory authorities like the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) or online intermediaries.
Previous Judicial Precedents
The Allahabad High Court’s decision is consistent with earlier rulings on films and free speech:
- S. Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram (1989) – The Supreme Court held that freedom of expression cannot be suppressed on account of threat of demonstration or fear of violence.
- Prakash Jha Productions v. Union of India (2011) – The Court ruled that films reflecting political corruption cannot be censored merely because they are uncomfortable for some groups.
- F.A. Picture International v. CBFC (2005) – The Bombay High Court reiterated that courts should interfere only when there is a gross violation of law.
By relying on these principles, the Allahabad High Court ensured that creative liberty is not stifled by speculative concerns.
Broader Impact on Legal Profession and Society
The legal fraternity has often expressed concerns about media portrayals of lawyers and judges, especially in commercial cinema. However, courts have balanced such concerns against the larger public interest in artistic freedom.
This judgment indicates that:
- Law students and young advocates should not be swayed by fictional portrayals but must understand the distinction between cinematic exaggeration and professional reality.
- The judiciary’s credibility cannot be undermined merely by film scripts; it rests on its integrity, independence, and functioning in real life.
- Filmmakers are assured that their creative expression will not be curtailed unless it crosses the line of legality.
Conclusion
The Allahabad High Court’s dismissal of the plea against Jolly LLB 3 underscores the judiciary’s commitment to protecting artistic expression while ensuring professional dignity is not compromised by baseless claims. By refusing to interfere, the Court reaffirmed that freedom of speech and expression includes cinematic creativity, and that remedies under statutory frameworks must be exhausted before approaching courts.
As the release of Jolly LLB 3 draws near, the ruling sends a strong message: fictional portrayals, however exaggerated, cannot be equated with real attacks on the legal system. The dignity of the judiciary and the legal profession remains intact, and so does the constitutional guarantee of free expression.
Also Read
NEET-UG 2025: Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Alleging OMR Sheet Tampering
