ARTICLE WRITING

SUBMITTED BY: SUBMITTED TO: LEY KEEN

 SHAIBA JAVED
DATE: 12 JUNE 2021

MOVIE: PINK

Movie: Pink
Director: Aniruddha Roy Chowdhury
Year of release: 2016
Cast:
 Amitabh Bachchan
 Taapsee Pannu
 Kriti Kulhari
 Andrea Tariang
 Angad Bedi,
 Piyush Mishra
 Vijay Varma

Plot of the movie:

Pink is a powerful movie based on the existing patriarchal mindset of most the
Indians, where men and women are judged by a different spectrum. Minal
Arora (Taapsee Pannu), Falak Ali (Kirti Kulhari) and Andrea Tariang (Andrea
Tariang) are working women living together in Delhi.
At a rock concert they meet Rajveer Singh (Angad Bedi) and his friends, Raunak
and Vishwajyoti. Later in the movie, we see that Rajveer is rushed to the
nearest hospital because he is bleeding from a heavy injury to his head. At the
same time, Minal, Falak and Andrea return to their apartment in a taxi. They
look very disturbed and horrified and it is implied that they have something to
do with the incident.
Premise
Rajveer’s friend Ankit (Vijay Varma), start threatening the girls to take revenge
for the injury Minal caused Rajveer. They followed and chased the girls down
and even leaked morphed pictures of Falak. She even losses her job. The local
police are quite aware that the men are well-connected and backed by
Rajveer’s uncle Ranjit, an influential politician. Minal goes to a police officer of
higher-standing and files a complaint.
The following day, Minal is kidnapped by Rajveer’s friends. Deepak Sehgal
(Amitabh Bachchan), who is also her neighbour, witnesses the incident. He
even tried to help them. Minal is threatened, blackmailed, and molested in the
moving car and dropped back home, leaving her shaken. After few days, she is
arrested based on a complaint filed by Rajveer addressing the women as
prostitutes and charged Minal with-Attempt To Murder. At this point, Deepak
introduces himself as a reputable lawyer in retirement helps Falak and Andrea
with the bail procedures and decides to represent Minal in court.

Proceedings:
In the courtroom, Rajveer’s lawyer, Prashant Mehra (Piyush Mishra), states,
the following version of events:
o On 1st March Rajveer and his friends meet Minal and her friends at a rock
concert. The boys invited the girls (in good faith) to a dinner at RS Resort,
where they have drinks.
o Later, Minal solicit Rajveer to establish sexual relationship in exchange of
money. The other girls were trying to do the same with Rajveer’s friends.
o Rajveer refuses to pay. To which Minal threatens him and blackmails him
and out of anger hits him on the head with a glass bottle and flees.

Minal and her friends stated:

o The men tried to sexually assault them. Rajveer even tried to rape Minal,
and she attacked him with the glass bottle in self-defence. Her intention
was only to protect her and not to kill.
o The boys followed them on the streets.
o Deepak’s argument was centred on the issue of Consent of women and
their right to say No.
A series of heated courtroom arguments ensues in the following days.
Towards the end of the trial, Rajveer becomes enraged and on provocation by
Deepak, reveals the truth, stating that the women “got what they deserved”.
Finale
Deepak also criticizes the society where women are stereotyped as prostitutes
if they come home late, party, move out, want to be independent, drink and so
on. He states that none of these apply to men.
He closes with the fact that his client said “NO”. No means no and it does not
require further explanation.
The women are acquitted while Rajveer, Ankit, and Raunak are held guilty,
with the hearing on quantum of their sentences pending. Vishwajyoti is let off
with a warning. The ending scenes reveal what happened, the men
systematically isolated the women and Rajveer tried to force himself on Minal,
who then attacked him with a bottle to his head in self-defence.
 Legal angle:
District And Session Court, Delhi
Case no. – 541

Criminal Proceeding - State vs. Minal Arora

Session Judge: Judge Satyaji Dutt
Petitioner- Rajveer Singh
Petitioner’s Advocate- Prashant Mehra
Respondent: Minal Arora
Respondent’s Advocate: Deepak Sehgal

Minal is charged under Sections 320 read with 324 and Section 307 of the
Indian Penal Code. Sections 320 and 324 contain the definition of grievous hurt
and the punishment for it, respectively. Section 307 is the charge of attempt to
murder. She was also charged with Section 385 of IPC which is Attempt to
Extort AND Section 372 which is Prostitution.
Minal would be rightly held under these sections if her intentions been the
same. But her intention was to protect herself and her modesty which led her
to hit Rajveer with the bottle in self defense.
When Minal is charged under these Sections her lawyer Deepak Sehgal,
counters that instead of Minal, Rajveer should be the one who should be
charged.
Deepak Sehgal held the case to be Vindictive Litigation and accused Rajveer
of the following charges.
o IPC Section 354: Outraging Women’s Modesty
o IPC Section 503: Criminal Intimidation
o IPC Section 340: Wrongful Confinement
o IPC Section 503: Criminal Intimidation
Rajveer had been found guilty of committing all these offences, unlike Minal
who acted in self-defence.

Review and analysis:

“No means no. It is not a word but a statement on its own. When a girl says no,
irrespective of whether she is an acquaintance, stranger, friend, girlfriend, or
wife, it means no. It doesn’t require a further explanation.”    
The character Minal has two very different sides. One which is brave enough
to hit someone in self defense, strong, and independent enough to live
separately from her parents in the same city. However, the other side cries for
help while locked in a jail cell, breaks down while pleading the Court to believe
her, refuses to face her father out of shame and embarrassment.

It also gave a powerful message and pointed out the hypocritical nature of the
Indian society towards girls by creating a ‘Girls Safety Manual’. This manual,
created by Deepak during the court proceedings contains the rules that a girl
should follow which will ensure her safety. It contains rules like ‘a girl shouldn’t
go anywhere alone with a boy because it comes across as an invitation to
outrage her modesty’, ‘a girl shouldn’t smile while talking because it is an
indication of being over-friendly’, etc. and so on.
Criticism: They forgot to highlight about morphed image of Falak which was
defamatory. Cases of cyber crime is increasing every day. Section 500 of IPC:
Punishment for Defamation and Section 66(e) and 67 of IT ACT.
Conclusion
The movie showcases hypocrite nature of the society, where a woman is
judged based on her clothes and her friendship with other men.
Where calling women for dinner is acceptable but if she attends the dinner,
her character is questionable. All the casts of the movie have performed
brilliantly. Leaving a thought behind us, that how our legal system is very
flexible while dealing with convict like Rajveer who is politically backed up and
how the system is shallow rigid and stereotype for women and not so
privileged people.