UNIVERSITY OF PETROLEUM & ENERGY STUDIES

B. Com LL.B. HONS. Spz. TAXATION LAWS

SEMESTER- VII
ACADEMIC YEAR: 2021-22 SESSIONS: AUG-DEC

PROJECT FOR BOOKS TO COURTROOM

Topic: Section 375 (Movie Review)

Under the Supervision of: Mr. Sumit Kumar Pachauri

SUBMITTED BY-

Ishita Pancholi 500070754 R129218051

Apoorva Kasturay 500070494 R129218005

Rudrakasha Idikar 500070203 R129218030

Tanya Gupta 500070145 R129218042

Navdeep Gill 500061858 R129201754

 Contents
INTRODUCTION.....................................................................................................................................3
NARRATIVE APPROACH.........................................................................................................................3
SOCIETAL APPROACH............................................................................................................................4
NATURAL DISPOSAL...............................................................................................................................4
LEGAL PERSPECTIVE...............................................................................................................................4
CONCLUSION.........................................................................................................................................5
INTRODUCTION
Section 375, about a filmmaker accused of sexual assault, strives to be objective, yet the
sensation of connection with the afflicted-looking masculine specimen in the dock is
palpable. This plurality review, filed in federal court of those who believe that Me Too has
gone beyond that and rape laws are really being abused by bloodthirsty female, seeks
credibility in the courtroom. A district court finds successful director Rohan (Rahul Bhat)
guilty of raping art director Anjali (Meera Chopra). Rohan's wife, Kainaz (Sree Swara),
engages top-tier lawyer Tarun (Akshaye Khanna) to represent him. Tarun strives to uncover
the flaws in Anjali's statements under the watchful eyes of judges played by Kishore Kadam
and Krutika Desai. Hiral (Richa Chadha), a marginally qualified state attorney, makes his job
simpler by relying on emotion but instead of good research to defend her client. Hiral takes
the moral high ground, while Tarun digs in the mud, unearthing unsettling realities about
Rohan's relationship with his accuser. Tarun's life is turned upside down when he is publicly
criticized by a rebel. As Tarun hones his skills, a film that had previously flirted with
diversity and breadth appears to take its claws while creeping toward a more satisfying
ending.
Section 375 takes its name from the sections of the Indian Penal Code dealing with sexual
harassment. The 123-minute political drama appears to be addressing, among other things,
the actor Shiney Ahuja's 2011 conviction for sexually assaulting his house keeper. A
comparable tawdriness pervades this film, which achieves series of documentaries
authenticity through scene staging and buttoned-down acting. The claimed rape that inspired
the events in Section 375 is repeated numerous times, and images of the victim's injuries on
her private parts are shown in unnerving close-ups. Tarun remarks that the film is highly
sarcastic about the distinction between law and justice, the law is physical, while justice is
abstract. As Tarun rambles on, it's evident that, over all his knowledge, he still doesn't
understand that rape is about dominance, not sex. Many of Tarun's arguments made, which
are given in English, are based on unprovable claims. Hiral's impassioned "Objection,
milords!" turns out to be a source of unexpected laughter.
Tarun requests the right to be heard, saying early in Section 375, "Imagine a world in which
we will not have the fundamental right to defend ourselves." It would be a horrible world. In
the interests of free speech, it is vital to hear Section 375's support for chauvinism, and
therefore it is helpful to quantify for you in a democracy whether the film is an excellent legal
drama or a noxious justification of profoundly established sexism in Bollywood.

NARRATIVE APPROACH
You understand how women say that everyone has a unique perspective on the world and that
everyone's reality is unique? Then you'll see what it looks like on screen, watch Section 375,
a courtroom drama about sexual violence in the #MeToo age that purports to give a
"balanced" viewpoint but eventually ends with the accused. This film has a number of flaws,
the most serious of which is its concept. Following the #MeToo movement, this is one of the
first Hindi films to explore sexual assault by influential individuals in the film business, and it
goes as far as to feature a fake rape claim. Although false rape charges are certainly a reality,
number after statistic reveals that they are the exception rather than the rule, implying that the
majority of rape and assault claims are accurate. But then again the choice of this theme is
unexpected, considering the all-male team of writers and producers and what I'm guessing are
concerns they're thinking about: judicial process, women squandering the platform they've
only lately received, and so on. They build a fictitious universe in which females and
women's experiences have equal, if not greater, power than men's, and in which the general
public and the media unambiguously support the survivor. The film depicts angry throngs of
demonstrators with posters such as "Hang The Rapists," and their size and anger grow even
while the trial drags on in the Bombay High Court for months.

SOCIETAL APPROACH
In terms of movies, it's hardly the worst you'll ever see. Throughout its 124-minute length,
Bahl masterfully tries to control tension. That's the kindest thing I've found about a film that
made me would really like to take out the chair and fling it at the screen on many occasions.
But that doesn't make it any less is among the most heinously poisonous films I've watched in
a long time. The theorist in me questioned whether Section 375's curiously timed publication
was suitable for multi co-ordinated PR effort by Bollywood to entice audiences to hurl money
at MeToo offenders in the nourish future. In Bahl's reality, registering a rape complaint and
gaining justice is a piece of cake; the only point is that the government makes it comically
simple for vindictive women to inflict retribution on straying boyfriends, particularly since
they also happen to be their bosses. Here's just a radical answer to this vexing issue: don't
paw or shove your penis in female colleagues.

NATURAL DISPOSAL
Movies on sexual assault frequently elicit analysis and anger on social media. When asked if
he had similar concerns about Section 375, Akshaye answers, "These statements should
always be taken with a grain of contempt." The top rated comments and opinions are of a
trivial type. They are not motivated by real care. There is far too much information and just
enough closure. The petitioner has raised concerns about a scene in which a victim is now
being cross-examined. They claim that such inquiries are never raised in public. When you
watch the movie, you will notice that the incident does not take advantage of the open
courtroom. We've done enough study to appropriately depict legal processes in the film.
However, not everything can be condensed into a 2-minute trailer.

LEGAL PERSPECTIVE
Section 375 of the IPC discusses rape and what activities, if committed by a man, might
subject him to punishment under Section 376 of the IPC. Section 375 was in the IPC at the
moment of its establishment, but its scope was expanded following the Criminal Law
Amendment of 2013. Previously, insertion of the penis into a woman's vagina, urethra, anus,
or mouth was deemed rape. However, it has become deemed rape whenever a male enters
any instrument or other component of his body into a woman's vagina, urethra, anus, or
mouth. The goal of Section 375 of the IPC may be understood by Justice Krishna Iyer's
statements in the case of Rafiq v. the State of UP, 1when he stated that a murderer destroys
the body of a victim, while a rapist kills the spirit. As a result, rape is a more heinous

1
Rafiq v. the State of UP 1981 AIR 559, 1981 SCR (1) 402.
violation against humanity than murder. Section 375 is critical in putting to justice the
victims who have been robbed of their hearts by those offenders.

CONCLUSION
There are numerous rape instances that go unreported to the authorities. Despite the fact that
various standards are developed and sentences are made more severe, the number of instances
continues to climb. The reason for this is because women are often unaware of their rights,
and victims are often hesitant to come forward and report such instances. Society recognises
that the victims are not to blame and do not deserve to be shunned; instead, government
should support the victims start a new life. Only until people's attitudes around rape
circumstances can change can the numerous laws that are enacted be adequately applied.