The Bombay High Court rejected a Public Interest Litigation seeking to restrain the release of the film Jolly LLB 3, on the ground that it allegedly mocks the judiciary. The petition was filed in advance of the film’s scheduled release, with the petitioner contending that elements in the film’s trailer—for instance, where judges are referred to using the term “Mamus”—amount to mockery of justice and are an affront to the dignity of the judiciary.
A Bench comprising the Chief Justice and another Judge heard the petition. The Court declined to accept the argument that the use of such language or portrayal in the film is sufficient to issue a restraining order. In oral remarks, the Court observed that judges have been subjected to mockery from the very outset of their offices (“from day one of our judgeships”) and that such portrayals do not affect them in a manner justifying judicial intervention. The Bench identified no legal provision or precedent that supports suppressing or restraining cinematic expression merely because it includes humorous or satirical references to judges, so long as material does not cross into unlawful territory such as defamation or contempt.
The Court noted that similar challenges to the film have been moved in other jurisdictions. In Allahabad High Court, a plea was dismissed earlier, the court there having found nothing objectionable in the trailer/teaser that might scandalize the legal profession. The Bombay High Court acknowledged that the claim in its case was similar in substance—that is, that the film defames the judiciary or the legal profession—but found that on the present record no enforceable legal right of the petitioner stood violated.
Accordingly, the PIL in the Bombay High Court was disposed of by refusal, allowing the film to proceed to release as scheduled.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.