NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF

STUDY AND RESEARCH IN LAW,

RANCHI

ENGLISH PROJECT

LEGAL ANALYSIS OF MOVIE “JOLLY L.L.B. 2”

SUBMITTED TO: SUBMITTED BY:

GUNJAN DUBEY NAME: MOHD FAHAD ANSARI
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR SEMESTER: 2
SECTION: A
ROLL NO: 1241

TABLE OF CONTENTS
DECLARATION………………………………………………………………………………….3
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT………………………………………………………………...…...….4
INTRODUCTION……………………………………….…………….…………………….…....5
ONLY A LOT LOUDER…………… ….………...…………………………………………...….6
BLANK COURTROOMS…………...…………………………………………...……………….7
MILORD, WHAT’S WITH THE JIG?...............................……………………………………....8

DECLARATION
I, Mohammad Fahad Ansari, a second – semester B.A.L.L.B. student of National University of
Study and Research in Law Ranchi (NUSRL Ranchi), at this moment declare that the project
titled “Legal analysis of movie Jolly L.L.B 2” under the guidance of Gunjan Dubey sir, faculty
of English is an original work. I have made sincere efforts in order to complete this project and
have not misrepresented facts or data.
I declare that the statements made and the conclusion drawn are the bona fide outcome of the
research work done by me. I further assert that, to the best of my knowledge and belief, proper
references have been given and do not contain any work that has been submitted to any
university.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Firstly, I would like to thank my teacher and mentor, Gunjan Dubey sir, who showed faith in me
by providing such an excellent topic. His constant guidance has played a vital role in the
completion of this project successfully. I express my gratitude to all the staff members and
administration of NUSRL Ranchi, for providing me such a beautiful library. Their support
cannot be expressed in words.
Finally, I would like to express my heartfelt gratitude to all those who helped me to complete this
project without any problems.

Thanking you

NAME: MOHAMMAD FAHAD ANSARI

SEMESTER: 2
SECTION: A
ROLL NUMBER: 1241

INTRODUCTION
The legal drama nails the ethical code for lawyers and police encounters, but falls flat on the
public interest litigation and judge's behavior.
There has always been and will continue to be a distinction between the lawyers we know in
person and the lawyers we watch on television. Lawyers have a reputation for being pedantic and
unimaginative in real life. In courtroom dramas, fireworks are frequently abundant on film, and
depictions dance the edge between conveying an engaging story and accurately representing the
law. When it all comes together, as in the 1957 film 12 Angry Men or the Marathi film Court,
seeing the law function may be wonderful (2014). You get something like Kyonki Main Jhoot
Nahi Bolta when it doesn't work.
(I apologize for bringing it up.)
So where does Jolly LLB 2 by Subhash Kapoor fit in? Is it deserving of the LLB designation?

We meet Jagdishwar Mishra, also known as Jolly (Akshay Kumar), who aspires to make enough
money to bribe his way into his own law firm. Jolly's father is a retired clerk who had worked at
a high-powered law firm. Jolly now works for the same lawyer, but he isn't treated well. Despite
possessing a law degree, he acts more like a substitute clerk for his father. Jolly is determined to
go to any length to ensure that his father's ambition of establishing a law chamber in the area is
realised A desperate Jolly deceives a potential client, Hina (Sayani Gupta), by informing her that
her case would be handled by his senior. When this happens, a lot of people's worst fears about
attorneys must be confirmed. The truth is that lawyers are bound by a code of ethics that sets
forth some ethical guidelines. While these aren't legally binding, failing to observe them can
result in expulsion from the Bar Council and prohibition from practicing law.

Later in the film, when Jolly is accused of providing fake evidence and beating a fellow lawyer,
this almost occurs to him. Furthermore, as a skilled lawyer, Jolly would likely be aware that what
he did is considered cheating under Section 415 of the penal code of India. Cheating is defined as
lying to someone, defrauding them, or fraudulently obtaining things from them.

ONLY A LOT LOUDER

The plot takes a very dramatic turn. Jolly is dismissed, Hina kills herself, and Jolly's father learns
about it. In true Bollywood fashion, Jolly grows up and becomes a hero. He investigates Hina's
case, discovering that her husband was killed in a phoney police confrontation and that she was
battling for his justice.

In real life, police contacts can quickly get problematic. In certain cases, the law enables the
police to use force, even to the point of killing the other person. However, it only applies when
the other individual is attempting to resist arrest or flee. This is the same defense that Mathur
(Annu Kapoor), a corrupt and influential police lawyer, uses to defend his client, encounter
expert Inspector Suryaveer Singh (Kumud Mishra). That is something the movie's creators got
right.

While there are no specific norms or legislation for dealing with police encounters, the Supreme
Court has issued guidelines in the case of PUCL vs. State of Maharashtra that must be followed
when examining a police encounter. There are a total of 16 rules, including initiating an
independent investigation into the incident, filing an FIR, and videotaping the postmortem.

BLANK COURTROOMS
We then go to the courtroom fight. This is where the film gets a little confused about the law.
Jolly files a public interest lawsuit to prove that Hina's husband, Iqbal Qasim (Manav Kaul), was
killed in a phoney police encounter. The problem is that in order for a PIL to be valid, you must
show that a large number of individuals have been harmed by the wrong you're trying to correct.
Suryaveer Singh has already committed 25 encounters, but Jolly focuses on only one of them. In
actual life, his PIL would have been extremely unlikely to be accepted.
In the past, the Supreme Court has set extensive instructions for what the court should check
before admitting a PIL and the kind of concerns for which a PIL can be filed. These are
sacrificed, naturally, in order for the tale to get to the courtroom. The legal struggle has been
fairly disappointing. Mathur, the all-powerful legal shark, isn't your average Denny Crane. To
beat Jolly, he employs low-level measures such as contract killing, threats, and falsifying
evidence. This is most likely why lawyers were offended by the film's portrayal of them.
As a result, the legal difficulties surrounding Jolly LLB 2 spilled over into real life, with lawyers
suing the producers and the Bombay High Court ordering the excision of four scenes. This raises
troubling censorship concerns.

MILORD, WHAT’S WITH THE JIG?

Returning to the world of fantasy, Mathur persuades everyone that Jolly forced his crucial
witness to lie. This puts Jolly in more trouble and irritates the judge, who reminds him that
presenting false evidence in court is a serious offence. Is it possible to go to jail for fabricating
evidence? The film gets this completely straight, as Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code
stipulates that presenting false testimony is punishable by up to seven years in prison. The
conclusion is more about emotional drama than it is about the law. Both parties produce a
sympathetic old guy to curry favour with the judge in one scene. It's also worth noting that no
judge in the real would act like Justice Tripathi (Saurabh Shukla) does in the film. In India, most
judges do not enter their chambers dancing on a song Gulabo. Overall, Jolly LLB 2 tries to
incorporate a lot of legal information into the tale, and some of it is accurate. However, if you're
hoping for insightful dialogue in the courtroom scenes, you'll be disappointed. Many people were
also irritated by the real-life judicial turmoil that surrounded the film.