CRITICAL REVIEW OF THE INDIAN BOLLYWOOD MOVIE: PINK (2016)

Directed by: Aniruddha Roy Chowdhury

BRIEF OVERVIEW

Released in 2016, the Bollywood highly entertaining yet educative movie, Pink is a Hindi courtroom drama that doubles as a social critique of deep-rooted gender biases and the legal profession’s role in upholding justice especially in India. The movie consists of the main characters and film stars Amitabh Bachchan as a retired lawyer Deepak Sehgal and Taapsee Pannu, Kirti Kulhari, and Andrea Tariang as three young women playing the characters of the Indian women and Minal, Falak, and Andrea who were the three culprits accused of attempted murder after defending themselves from sexual assault by the politically motivated men. The narrative in this creative movie show challenges the conventional Courtroom portrayals as in India, by shifting the focus to consent and the prejudices that often cloud judicial reasoning while performing their judicial duties. Therefore, Pink not only tells a compelling story about the gender biases and often heinous discrimination on gender and sex basis but it also exposes the ethical challenges faced by lawyers in high-profile and socially sensitive cases in the country. It shows how lawyers often fail to uphold their professional integrity at work places and while handling dire clients who suffer such horrible situations in India.

ETHICAL CONCERNS

As I watched through the movie, I identified the following ethical challenges and issues with reference to the scene related to the relevant laws on professional ethics by lawyers and judges in India.

• On Cross-Examination Conduct and Witness Dignity.

During the multiple Court scenes throughout the movie, the opposing Counsel (also known as the Learnt Counsel) repeatedly asks the women, not only irrelevant but criminally intrusive questions about their clothing, alcohol consumption, and other social life. This kind of questioning significantly imply that these choices of clothing, alcohol consumption and perhaps other social lives undermine the credibility and worthiness of the crime been committed. Besides, such kind of questioning also breaches ethical obligations to maintain respect and dignity in Courts at all times regardless of which side they are defending. This breaches the essential provisions of the Bar Council of India Rules, Part VI, Chapter II, Rules 1 and 2 which reads;

"Rule 1: An advocate shall, during the presentation of his case and while otherwise acting before a court, conduct himself with dignity and self-respect, and,

Rule 2: An advocate shall maintain towards the court a respectful attitude, bearing in mind that the dignity of the judicial office is essential for the survival of a free community."

I has been clearly witnessed that the opposing Counsel’s line of questioning in the Movie clearly deviates from these standards, as it seeks to degrade rather than illuminate truth in Court.

• On Client Confidentiality and Duty to Protect Interests.

Additionally, I have also seen that Deepak Sehgal as the advocate for the victims, carefully manages what information about Minal and her friends is shared in Court, disclosing only what is strictly necessary for the defense and avoiding details that could lead to unnecessary public embarrassment. This showed the integrity and the fundamental professional requirement that Advocates are bound to protect all communications and sensitive information obtained from their clients unless such disclosure is required by law. This is satisfactory with the relevant provisions of the Bar Council of India rules especially rules 17 and 18 which reads as follows:

“Rule 17: An advocate shall not, directly or indirectly, commit a breach of the obligations imposed by Section 126 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and,

Rule 18: An advocate shall not misuse or take advantage of the confidence reposed in him by his client."

• On Misrepresentation of Facts and Witness Coaching.

Again, it has been observed that the opposing Counsel continually constructs a narrative suggesting the women consented to sexual activity based solely on their social behavior which he digs out unfairly by selectively highlighting witness statements while ignoring contradictory evidences on the same. It is clear that deliberately distorting facts or encouraging witnesses to present an untrue version of events undoubtedly undermines the justice system and all its fundamental objectives. This portrays a deviation from fighting for what is just to chasing for wins at all costs regardless of employing dangerous means to obtain such wins - which isn’t just per se. This action shows a clear violation of the Bar Council of India Rules 9 and 11 as quoted below:

“Rule 9: An advocate shall not knowingly make any false statement of fact or law to the Court, and,

Rule 11: An advocate shall not coach or rehearse witnesses, but may interview them to elicit relevant information."

Besides, the act also violates and contributes to an act of professional misconduct due to his acts of victim-blaming tactics and distortion of evidence to only suit his interest, not the interest of justice, as enumerated under section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961 as it reads below:

"S.35: Where an advocate is found guilty of professional or other misconduct, the disciplinary committee of the State Bar Council may make an order for reprimand, suspension, or removal of the name of the advocate from the roll."

Needless to say, the opposing Counsel’s behavior while handling his case can also be attributed to his violation of The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Such acts can be termed as “Interference with, or obstruction of, the administration of justice in any other manner” as clearly propounded under Section 2(c)(iii) of the same Act. This is due to the overly prejudicial questioning and presentation of highly misleading evidences which could obstruct justice, especially in sensitive cases as this.

A SCENE BY SCENE ETHICAL ANALYSIS WITH RELEVANT LEGAL REFERENCES CAN BE SEEN AS BELOW

1.   The resort incident in the opening clearly sets the factual conflict but no ethical breaches yet. This only establishes the stakes for analyzing the both Counsels’ conduct while accepting to proceed further with the case.

2.   While in the first Court hearing, it became apparent that the opposing Counsel went on to breach the Rule No. 1 by adopting an unnecessarily aggressive tone towards the accused. This is also coupled with severe harshness in the Court, deviating far away from the professional conduct and Court mannerism altogether.

3.   At the time of cross-examination of Minal as the witness, the opposing Counsel went on and breaches Rule No. 2 and Rule No. 3 of the Bar Council of India Rules, by disrespecting the witness and introducing irrelevant personal life questions which has little-to-no merit at all at the interests of justice.

4.   Also, at the time of cross-examination of Falak and Andrea, the opposing Council practiced a sense of suggestive and begging questioning tactic, essentially designed to imply consent from the side of the victims which is a breach of Rule 9 on the concern of no false statements and Rule 11 on no coaching witnesses of the Bar Council of India Rules.

5.   On a good note, Counsel Deepak Sehgal’s legal arguments on consent clearly and thoroughly complies with Rules 15 - 17 and Rule 18 of the Bar Council of India Rules which also focuses on penal definition of consent, disregarding it from being a moral character. It upholds the demand that consent must be free and consciously given by any person for such actions, signaling their interests in the same.

6.  Now on the final arguments, Counsel Deepak delivers a factual and law-based summation, modelling professional ethics. The Counsel thoroughly emphasized the need to uphold professional ethics by all advocates and encouraged the judges to always keep an eye on the conducts of the advocates while they plead their cases before the Court. This is to nurture a professional culture of fighting for justice and not only to win a case at the interest of gaining financial benefits for the same. Deepak’s argument also upholds the view that justice should not be defined by who’s good or bad but who deserves what is just.

MY CRITICAL COMMENTARY AND PERSPECTIVE ON THIS SHOW

It has been observed that Pink offers a layered ethical study for law students and also legal professionals. As on one side, the prosecution exemplifies what not to do by engaging in irrelevant, morally prejudiced questioning tactics, selectively presenting facts to create a misleading narrative while ignoring counter arguments on those claimed facts and threatening the safety of the witnesses while they discharge their legal obligations in the Court.

On the other hand, however, Counsel Deepak Sehgal remains very punctual and firm in his submission. He demonstrates how to ethically advocate regardless of an encounter with such unethical opponents in the Court room. Deepak’s argument portrayed the ethical standard requirement of protecting client confidentiality at all costs, respecting the dignity of witnesses and ensuring that they feel the legal protection during their deliverances and also grounding arguments in pursuant to the statutory law rather than social prejudices as the opposing counsel attempts to employ.

Besides, a thorough understanding of this Movie clearly mainstream the principle that “No means No” and it helps to influence the public discourse and reinforce the legal ethics and professional principles which are intertwined with social changes.  The show also portrays that in law schools, the Movie, Pink could be used to simulate mock trials while focusing on proper cross-examination boundaries, avoidance of professional misconducts by lawyers and advocates and also linking courtroom conducts to actual Bar Council rules alongside the relevant statutory legislations such as the Advocates Act, 1961 and the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

CONCLUSION

Hurray! What an immensely educative movie this is! Pink transcends courtroom drama to serve as a vivid case study in legal ethics and professional conducts by advocates in Courts. It juxtaposes the violation and upholding of The Bar Council of India Rules, The Advocates Act, 1961, The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and other ethical norms in the legal profession. It also reminds advocates that justice is not just about winning cases - it’s about preserving dignity, truth, integrity, and public faith in the legal system. From the shamelessly contrasting approaches of the prosecution and defense Counsels in the film, it has been clearly demonstrated that the means to justice matter as much as the ends. In real practice, behavior like that of the opposing Counsel could trigger disciplinary proceedings against such advocates, while Deepak Sehgal’s approach could be held up as a model in advocacy training for all legal practitioners. Pink is not just a Movie; it's a practical learning package.

💬Movie Review

Reviewed By: Charles Anyama Kalisto

5th Year Corporate Law Student (BA.LLB-HONS)

Marwadi University, Gujarat - India.

🖎Writer