COURTROOMS in real life are quiet, slow and complex.
But in films, they are battlegrounds where truth emerges through powerful monologues, surprise witnesses and heroic judges. Over time, cinema—whether Bollywood or Hollywood—has shaped how ordinary people perceive justice, often creating unrealistic expectations of real-world courts.
Bollywood classics like Damini (1993) gave us Sunny Deol’s unforgettable roar: “Tareekh pe tareekh!” turning court delays into a national frustration. More recently, Jolly LLB and its sequel portrayed witty lawyers outsmarting the rich and powerful in less than three hours. Audiences cheered as justice triumphed against all odds, forgetting that in real courts, evidence, procedure and appeals stretch cases over years.
Hollywood has done much the same. In A Few Good Men (1992), Tom Cruise cracks the case with a single explosive question: “Did you order the Code Red?” Movies like The Lincoln Lawyer (2011) and The Judge (2014) continue this trend of courtroom thrillers where sharp lawyers and dramatic confessions drive the story. But real courtrooms are far less theatrical. Judges rarely raise their voices, lawyers don’t always deliver passionate speeches and cases hinge on technical details—not just moral righteousness.
This gap between cinematic drama and legal reality creates a problem. When people watch court cases on the news, they expect the same swift justice they saw on screen. They forget that judges cannot play hero or villain. Their job is to interpret the law, not deliver emotional satisfaction.
Take recent films like Article 370 (2024) or Jawan (2023). Both depict the fight against corruption and injustice as a battle where bold action solves deep-rooted problems. While such stories inspire social awareness, they oversimplify the painstaking work of real-life judges and lawyers. In real cases, truth is often hidden in thousands of pages of evidence and countless hearings—not one dramatic confession.
Unfortunately, this cinematic influence fuels public impatience. When verdicts in political cases don’t align with popular sentiment, the public criticizes judges for lacking courage or bending to pressure. Yet, the legal system is designed to follow the Constitution, not popularity polls.
Cinema has an important role in society—it can spark debates on justice, corruption and equality. But it must be remembered that a movie’s job is to entertain and amuse only. Real reform comes through court reform, legal awareness and civic responsibility—not just from screenwriters’ imaginations. As Hazrat Ali (RA) said, “A system can survive without belief, but not without justice.” But justice, in the real world, is built on evidence, argument and law—not camera angles and dramatic music. Perhaps the next time we watch a courtroom scene on screen, we should enjoy the drama—but leave the verdict to the courts.
—The writer is contributing columnist.
(buttali@gmail.com)
