Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Section 375

Section 375 of the , 1860, defined the offence of as non-consensual sexual acts by a man against a , including penile penetration into the , , , or , insertion of objects or parts, or oral application, occurring against her will, without free , or under circumstances rendering consent invalid such as fear, , mental incapacity, or the victim's age under eighteen. This provision, operative from 1862 until the IPC's repeal on July 1, 2024, by the , emphasized lack of consent as the core element, with consent deemed absent if obtained through , , or when the is incapable of understanding the act's nature. Key exceptions to the definition included Exception 1, deeming or carnal connection with a under twelve years as , and Exception 2, exempting with a not under fifteen years (amended to eighteen in 2013), effectively excluding from criminalization for adult spouses. This marital exception, inherited from English principles implying perpetual consent in marriage, has faced sustained constitutional challenges in the for allegedly infringing Articles 14, 15, and 21 of the , which guarantee , non-discrimination, and personal liberty, though courts have upheld it pending legislative action while urging to reconsider. The section underwent amendments in 1983, expanding custodial rape provisions; in 2013 via the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act following the 2012 gang rape, which introduced gender-neutral elements for certain acts like but retained male-on-female core, added and acid attacks, and mandated faster trials; and in 2018, raising the age threshold and enhancing death penalties for child . These changes aimed to strengthen deterrence amid empirical data showing high underreporting of , with statistics indicating over 30,000 reported cases annually in recent years, though conviction rates remain below 30 percent due to evidentiary and procedural hurdles. Controversies also encompass the law's gender specificity, excluding male victims from charges despite decriminalization of homosexuality under in 2018, and calls for further reforms to incorporate false accusation risks and evidentiary standards prioritizing corroboration. The successor provision in of the retains the marital exception, perpetuating debates over balancing victim protections with marital presumptions.

Synopsis

Plot Summary

The film depicts the arrest and trial of Rohan Khurana, a successful Bollywood director played by , who faces charges under Section 375 of the for allegedly raping Anjali Dangle, a junior costume assistant portrayed by . Anjali claims that after completing a shoot, Rohan invited her to his home to review footage and discuss her potential promotion to , during which he assaulted her despite her resistance. The accusation leads to Rohan's immediate detention, highlighting the swift legal action under rape laws that presume guilt until proven otherwise. The core of the story unfolds in the , pitting public prosecutor Hiral Gandhi () against defense counsel Tarun Saluja (), Hiral's former mentor whose rigorous cross-examinations challenge the prosecution's narrative. Through testimonies from witnesses, including the accused's acquaintances and forensic evidence, the proceedings reveal discrepancies in Anjali's account and explore the director's version of events suggesting consensual interaction. Flashbacks intercut to reconstruct the night in question, emphasizing debates over , , and relational dynamics between the parties involved. As the trial progresses, the film examines procedural elements such as hearings, influence on public perception, and the burden of proof, with Saluja arguing that the law's structure under Section 375 can enable misuse in cases lacking corroborative evidence. The narrative maintains ambiguity regarding the truth, focusing instead on the adversarial legal system's handling of allegations within India's socio-cultural context.

Production

Development and Writing

The screenplay for Section 375 originated from writer Manish Gupta's personal encounters related to the 2009 rape accusation against actor by his domestic help. Gupta, who was slated to direct a different starring Ahuja, frequently visited the actor's home and interacted with the accuser prior to the allegations, which profoundly impacted him and prompted the story's conception. Gupta developed the script over three years, incorporating extensive research that included attending more than 160 court sessions on cases, consulting criminal lawyers, and speaking with both victims and the accused to ensure a balanced examination of under Section 375 of the . He crafted the story, , and dialogues, focusing on the potential misuse of laws while aiming to depict judicial processes without overt bias. Initially, planned to direct the film himself after producers and of acquired the rights in early 2018, announcing it as Section 375: Marzi Ya Jabardasti with and attached. Disputes arose when issued legal notices in mid-2018, attempting to terminate the agreement and prohibit use of his , citing concerns over creative control. The Indian Film & Television Directors' Association (IFTDA) ruled in favor of the producers in July 2018, affirming their rights and allowing development to proceed. Ajay Bahl joined as director approximately one year before the film's September 2019 release, brought in via recommendation from a co-producer associate of the Pathaks, after which he contributed additional screenplay elements while maintaining an objective approach to the sensitive subject. Preeti Singh provided additional , refining the courtroom exchanges to heighten dramatic tension without altering the core legal narrative established by .

Casting

The principal cast of Section 375 features Akshaye Khanna as Tarun Saluja, a seasoned defense advocate who represents the accused film director in the high-profile rape trial. Richa Chadha portrays Hiral Gandhi, the determined public prosecutor tasked with securing a conviction under Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code. Rahul Bhat plays Rohan Khurana, the established Bollywood director charged with the rape of his junior costume assistant. Meera Chopra embodies Anjali Dangle, the complainant whose testimony drives the prosecution's case. Supporting roles include Shriswara Dubey as Kainaz Khurana, the wife of the accused, and additional ensemble members such as and , who contribute to the courtroom and investigative dynamics. Director Ajay Bahl selected actors capable of conveying moral ambiguity and professional intensity, with Khanna's portrayal emphasizing a navigating ethical contradictions in defending a potentially guilty client, while Chadha's character reflects a blend of prosecutorial zeal and personal ambition. The drew on performers with prior experience in dramatic roles, aligning with the film's focus on legal intricacies rather than overt sensationalism.

Filming and Technical Aspects

Principal photography for Section 375 commenced in January 2019 and was conducted primarily in , Maharashtra, India. The production adhered to a tight schedule typical of Indian courtroom dramas, focusing on interior sets for legal proceedings and minimal exterior shots to emphasize confined, tension-building environments. Cinematography was led by Sudhir K. Chaudhary, who utilized dynamic camera techniques, including frequent sweeping movements and close framing of subjects, to sustain a sense of immediacy and unease throughout the film's and sequences. These choices contributed to a moody visual style that supported the narrative's focus on psychological confrontation rather than expansive action. Editing responsibilities fell to Praveen Angre, whose work maintained a brisk pace, ensuring the film's 124-minute avoided lulls while heightening dramatic tension through precise cuts during cross-examinations and revelations. and production sound were overseen by Shahaab , incorporating layered audio cues—such as echoing acoustics and subtle foley for emphasis—to underscore the gravity of legal testimonies without overpowering dialogue-driven scenes. No specific camera models or lenses were publicly detailed, aligning with standard practices in mid-budget Bollywood productions prioritizing narrative efficiency over experimental visuals.

Themes and Legal Context

Portrayal of Section 375 IPC

The film Section 375 centers its narrative on the application of Section 375 of the (IPC), which defines as a man penetrating a woman's , , , or with his , or inserting an object or part into these areas, or manipulating any part of her to cause penetration, without her or against her will, with punishment ranging from seven years to or death in aggravated cases. The story unfolds through the trial of Bollywood director Rohan Khurana, accused by junior costume assistant Anjali Dangle of raping her at his residence during a script reading, framing the section as the legal fulcrum for examining , testimony, and procedural safeguards like the versus the gravity of accusations. The depiction underscores the section's reliance on proving absence of , with courtroom scenes dramatizing forensic , witness cross-examinations, and medical reports to contest the complainant's claims of . A key aspect of the portrayal is the elucidation of the nuanced language in Section 375, distinguishing "against her will" (implying active ) from "without her " (encompassing passive or later retraction), which the defense lawyer Tarun Saluja repeatedly invokes to argue that the encounter was voluntary, initiated by the accuser via suggestive attire and behavior, rather than non-consensual force. Graphic reconstructions of the alleged incident, including dialogues and physical interactions, are shown to illustrate initial mutual participation, portraying the section's evidentiary burdens—such as the lack of immediate or —as exploitable in defenses against what the film presents as fabricated claims motivated by professional grudge or financial . This representation aligns with the law's exceptions for consensual acts but critiques its rigidity, showing how post-facto regret or external pressures can transform voluntary sex into a Section 375 charge without corroborative proof beyond the complainant's statement. The film further portrays Section 375's procedural elements, including the mandatory recording of victim statements under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the role of public prosecutors in prioritizing complainant credibility amid societal pressures post-2012 Nirbhaya amendments, which expanded the definition and shifted burdens in custodial cases. Through Saluja's monologues, it depicts the section as a tool for that risks miscarriages when is ambiguously inferred from power imbalances or delayed complaints, with exposing coached testimonies and suppressed evidence like the accuser's prior communications indicating willingness. This framing positions Section 375 not merely as punitive statute but as a battleground where legal technicalities—such as the irrelevance of moral regret to —clash with presumptions favoring accusers, ultimately convicting the complainant of to highlight the law's dual vulnerability to under-enforcement in genuine cases and overreach in fabricated ones.

Depiction of Consent and False Accusations

In Section 375, consent is portrayed as a nuanced and context-dependent element, particularly within unequal power dynamics on a set. The central incident involves junior costume designer Dangle accusing director Rohan Khurana of rape during a late-night script reading; the film depicts the encounter as beginning with verbal resistance from Anjali but progressing to apparent acquiescence, raising questions about versus explicit under Section 375 of the , which requires absence of or obtained by or misconception. The narrative emphasizes that cannot be presumed static, illustrating through how post-incident behavior—such as Anjali's continued professional interaction with Khurana—complicates binary interpretations, though defense lawyer Tarun Saluja argues this aligns with legal standards where resistance must be contemporaneous and physical evidence absent. The film explicitly frames Anjali's accusation as false, motivated by a desire for career advancement and retaliation after Khurana rejects her advances and threatens to expose an illicit affair. Evidence presented includes fabricated medical reports, coached witnesses, and Anjali's prior consensual encounters with Khurana, portrayed as leveraging 's stringent presumptions against the accused—such as the law's reversal of burden of proof in custodial cases—to engineer a despite lack of corroboration. This depiction draws from real-world inspirations like the 2009 case, where a domestic worker's against the actor was later contested as consensual by defense claims of retraction and inconsistencies, though Ahuja served partial sentence before ; the film amplifies such scenarios to critique how unverified claims can devastate reputations, with Khurana facing media trial and professional ruin pre-verdict. Prosecutor Hiral Pendse counters by highlighting institutional biases favoring powerful men, arguing the film's consent portrayal minimizes and imbalances, yet the resolution vindicates Khurana via overlooked CCTV footage showing initiating contact post-incident, underscoring the filmmakers' view that judicial overreliance on complainant without forensic enables miscarriages. Sources critiquing , often from progressive outlets, contend this narrative disproportionately amplifies rare false claims (estimated at 2-10% in studies, per NCRB data cross-verified with retraction rates) while sidelining genuine survivor experiences, reflecting broader tendencies to prioritize perspectives amid #MeToo . In , defenders empirical instances of misuse, such as the 2013 observation in a case where a admitted fabricating for property disputes, aligning the film's caution against presumptive guilt.

Critique of Judicial and Media Processes

The film Section 375 portrays the judicial process under Section 375 of the as encumbered by interpretive challenges in defining , heavy reliance on complainant , and systemic delays that exacerbate emotional tolls on all parties. The narrative centers on a where forensic and credibility become pivotal, highlighting how courts grapple with evolving legal standards post-2013 amendments, which shifted the burden of proof in certain custodial cases but retained presumptions favoring the in others. This depiction reflects broader empirical realities, with conviction rates for offenses hovering at 27-28% from 2018 to 2022, per (NCRB) data, often due to evidentiary gaps such as delayed reporting, forensic backlogs, and witness hostility rather than inherent bias against victims. Critiques within extend to prosecutorial overreach and strategies that exploit procedural loopholes, underscoring a causal disconnect between legal intent and practical enforcement amid overburdened courts handling millions of pending cases. Real-world acquittals exceed 70% in many jurisdictions, attributed not solely to false claims but to investigative lapses like contaminated evidence collection, as documented in forensic analyses of trials. The film's emphasis on first-hand evidentiary rigor—such as footage and medical timelines—serves as a meta-commentary on how judicial demands corroboration beyond narratives, countering institutional tendencies in and legal to prioritize subjective accounts without sufficient causal linkage to facts. Media processes receive pointed scrutiny in Section 375 for fostering prejudicial "trials by television" that erode the , as seen in scenes where amplifies unproven allegations, swaying and indirectly pressuring judges. This mirrors documented influences in cases, where intensive coverage of events like the 2012 Delhi gang rape led to expedited legislation but also instances of accused vilification before adjudication, with studies noting media framing that communalizes or sensationalizes crimes to boost viewership. Such dynamics, often unchecked by self-regulatory bodies, contribute to miscarriages where acquittals follow media-led convictions in the , particularly when sources exhibit systemic biases favoring victim-centric narratives over balanced reporting. The film's narrative warns of 's role in obscuring false accusation risks, with NCRB classifying under 8% of investigated cases as "false" based on closures for lack of or complainant , though critics argue this undercounts due to definitional narrowness excluding compromised genuine cases. Proponents of the film's stance cite higher acquittal-driven estimates of misuse—up to 74% in some police assessments—motivated by vendettas or , urging reforms like mandatory preliminary inquiries to filter baseless claims without undermining legitimate ones. This tension reveals deeper causal issues: amplification incentivizes filings amid low evidentiary thresholds, while judicial inertia perpetuates a cycle where truth yields to expediency.

Release and Promotion

Marketing Strategies

The marketing campaign for Section 375 emphasized the film's courtroom drama elements and provocative questions on , truth, and legal misuse through targeted and live events ahead of its September 13, 2019, release. Producers and SCIPL released a teaser on August 8, 2019, followed by the official trailer on August 13, which garnered attention by framing the narrative around "his story, her story, and the truth." A series of dialogue promos, starting August 29 and continuing through early September, featured intense exchanges between leads and to underscore thematic debates on versus willingness, such as the "Marzi ya Zabardsasti?" in a key unveiled August 21. Promotional events included a trailer launch on August 14 with the cast, social media amplification via actor posts like Richa Chadha's trailer announcement, and city tours such as Delhi visits on September 9–11 for media interactions and public appearances. Additional stops occurred in Mumbai's Juhu area, where the ensemble promoted the film's intent to provoke discussion on Section 375 IPC without overt bias, as articulated by director Ajay Bahl in contemporaneous interviews. This approach leveraged the post-#MeToo climate to position the film as a catalyst for audience reflection on accusation dynamics, though it drew polarized pre-release buzz.

Theatrical Release and Distribution

Section 375 premiered theatrically in on 13 September 2019, after producers postponed the original 2 August 2019 date amid scheduling adjustments. The release occurred on roughly 850 screens nationwide, targeting urban multiplexes given the film's courtroom drama genre and modest promotional scale. Produced by and presented by T-Series, distribution in was managed through these banners' networks, leveraging T-Series' established theatrical channels for Hindi-language films. Internationally, the film rolled out concurrently in select markets, including the on 12 September 2019 and , , , and the on 13 September, often via regional partners like Mind Blowing Films for . This staggered yet overlapping strategy aimed to capitalize on diaspora audiences familiar with Indian legal themes, though overseas openings remained limited compared to domestic focus. No major distribution disputes or certification hurdles were reported, with the granting a rating prior to launch, allowing access to broader family viewership while noting mature content on consent and trials. Initial tracking indicated subdued opening-day collections of approximately ₹86 in , reflecting cautious exhibitor bookings for a content-driven release absent A-list star power.

Reception

Critical Response

Critics offered a polarized response to Section 375, praising its taut drama and performances while condemning its handling of and accusations as potentially undermining victims. On , the film holds a % approval from 12 critic reviews, reflecting this divide. Reviewers commended director Ajay Bahl's efficient pacing and the screenplay's avoidance of melodrama, with Sreeparna Sengupta of awarding it 4 out of 5 stars for being "an audacious effort" that engages viewers in debates over legal complexities without shrill moralizing. Akshaye Khanna's portrayal of the defense Tarun Saluja drew widespread acclaim for its intensity and nuance, often described as owning the screen, while Chadha's role as Anjana Saxena was noted for adding depth to the adversarial dynamic. Detractors, however, argued the film prioritizes a sympathetic to the accused at the expense of broader power imbalances, labeling it insensitive amid India's #MeToo reckoning. of called it "myopic, ignorant and a train wreck," faulting its shift from ambiguity to a stance that emerges as "deeply disturbing and injudicious" by implying widespread false claims erode genuine cases. Similarly, India critiqued it as "irresponsible and dangerous," asserting it dismisses unequal structures in Bollywood and society, potentially fueling skepticism toward accusers in a context where underreporting remains prevalent. Such views, often from outlets attuned to , contrasted with endorsements of the film's realism in depicting investigative flaws and evidentiary burdens under Section 375 of the , though few critics engaged empirical data on conviction rates or false allegation prevalence to substantiate their positions. The discourse highlighted tensions between procedural fairness and priorities, with some analyses, like those in News18, terming it an "unmistakably compelling" that probes consent's ambiguities without easy resolutions, earning 3.5 out of 5 stars. Overall, while technical execution garnered consistent approval, the film's challenge to presumptions of credibility provoked accusations of bias, underscoring media polarization on legal misuse versus survivor protections in post-2013 amendments.

Audience and Commercial Performance

Section 375 earned ₹1.45 nett on its in on September 13, 2019. The film collected ₹5.80 nett over its opening weekend, with daily figures of ₹3.07 on and ₹3.52 on Sunday. Its total India nett collection reached ₹10.88 , reflecting modest theatrical performance amid competition from larger releases. Overseas earnings were limited, contributing approximately ₹2 to the worldwide gross, resulting in an overall domestic verdict of flop. Audience reception was generally positive, with the film garnering an 8.1/10 rating on from over 20,000 user votes, praising its courtroom drama and handling of consent issues. Viewers highlighted strong performances by and , noting the film's engaging narrative despite its provocative theme on false accusations under Section 375 of the . However, the sensitive subject matter sparked debates, limiting broader appeal and word-of-mouth momentum needed for sustained runs. On platforms like , it averaged 3.4/5 from thousands of ratings, with users commending its tension and realism over commercial gloss.

Controversies

Feminist Critiques and Defenses

Feminist critics of Section 375 argued that the film undermines survivor credibility by centering a narrative of motivated by revenge, thereby perpetuating widespread disbelief in women's claims of . A review in specifically critiqued the portrayal of the accuser as empowered and vengeful, inverting real-world power dynamics post-#MeToo, while depicting anti-assault protests as irrational "lynch mobs" rather than legitimate activism. The same analysis noted the film's bias toward the accused, ignoring empirical data indicating false allegations constitute only 2-10% of cases, as per studies like those referenced from . Additional critiques focused on the film's reinforcement of damaging , such as women as inherent liars in cases, and legal inaccuracies, including the erroneous depiction of survivors undergoing repeated public examinations in appeals, which violates in-camera trial protocols under . Outlets like and further contended that the movie dismisses structural inequalities in industries like Bollywood, prioritizing the accused's perspective over survivor agency and framing consent debates in a way that excuses exploitation under power imbalances. Firstpost described this as a "dangerously toxic message" cloaked in nuance, sidelining the victim's viewpoint in favor of the defense. Defenses against these critiques emphasized the film's intent to promote evidence-based over emotional presumption, without inherent anti-woman bias. Actress , who portrayed the , argued that all characters, including the accuser, are depicted with and , avoiding stereotypes, and that the reflects real complexities like the existence of fabricated claims alongside unreported genuine assaults. She positioned the movie as a catalyst for nuanced dialogue on , workplace protections, and legal reforms, urging viewers to engage logically rather than ideologically. Supporters, including some legal analysts, praised its exploration of Section 375 IPC's application in grey-area cases, contending it highlights misuse risks without denying rape's prevalence, though explicit endorsements from feminist scholars remain limited in public discourse.

Debates on Legal Misuse Representation

The film Section 375 portrays the misuse of laws under Section 375 of the through a where a costume designer's accusation against a is revealed to involve fabricated and ulterior motives, such as advancement and financial gain, orchestrated with complicit involvement. This depiction has sparked debate on whether it realistically reflects systemic vulnerabilities in India's legal framework or sensationalizes rare instances to undermine victim credibility. Supporters contend that the film's representation aligns with documented patterns of legal exploitation, noting that (NCRB) data for 2020 classified approximately 8% of investigated cases—around 2,243 out of 28,046—as false, often involving motives like or false promises of , which comprised about 25% of analyzed cases in some studies. Critics argue that the film's emphasis on prosecutorial manipulation and a biased investigative process exaggerates misuse while downplaying structural barriers to in genuine cases, such as evidentiary challenges and societal , evidenced by India's overall hovering around 32% as per legal analyses. Director Manish Gupta has defended the portrayal by asserting that laws are "being misused by men and women alike," drawing from consultations with lawyers, judges, and accused parties to illustrate how initial accusations can irreparably damage reputations even if later disproven, a point echoed in surveys like a 2013-2014 study finding over 50% of reports potentially false. However, opponents, including feminist commentators, counter that such framing reinforces a of inherent deceit, potentially deterring reporting amid already low disclosure rates, with NCRB figures showing only a fraction of incidents formally registered. Empirical debates extend to definitional issues: NCRB's "false" classification applies to cases deemed non-cognizable during probe, but —reaching 74% in some reports—often stem from insufficient proof rather than proven fabrication, complicating the film's justice-versus-law . Proponents of the film's approach highlight real-world examples of tampering by overzealous officers, as depicted, which mirrors critiques in legal on post-2012 amendments tightening Section 375 yet amplifying misuse risks without safeguards for the accused. Detractors maintain that prioritizing misuse narratives, even if partially factual, risks broader skepticism toward survivors, especially given power imbalances in industries like Bollywood, where is set. These contentions underscore a tension between acknowledging verifiable abuses—supported by acquittal trends and selective false-case data—and avoiding overgeneralization that could erode trust in the legal system's intent to protect against non-consensual acts.

Awards and Legacy

Accolades

Section 375 garnered nominations at the in 2020, primarily for its and lead performance. Writers Manish Gupta and director Ajay Bahl were nominated for Best , acknowledging the film's taut legal drama structure that balanced courtroom arguments with procedural realism. , portraying defense Tarun Saluja, received a nomination for Best Actor (Critics), recognizing his depiction of a pragmatic navigating ethical ambiguities in high-stakes trials. The film also earned a for (Critics) for Khanna at the in 2020, highlighting industry appreciation for performances that tackled contentious legal themes without overt sensationalism. Despite these recognitions, Section 375 did not secure any wins at these ceremonies, reflecting its polarizing reception amid debates on its portrayal of and judicial processes.

Cultural and Industry Impact

Section 375 (2019) stimulated public discourse on the interpretation of versus willingness under Section 375 of the , prompting audiences and commentators to differentiate between legal definitions of non-consensual acts and situational compliance. The film's narrative, drawing from real cases such as the 2009 Shiney Ahuja incident involving a accusation by domestic staff, underscored evidentiary challenges in prosecutions, fostering debates on balancing protections with safeguards against potential fabrication. Culturally, the movie polarized opinions, with detractors from outlets aligned with #MeToo advocacy claiming it normalized disbelief in survivors and downplayed power imbalances in industries like Bollywood, while proponents viewed it as a corrective to one-sided narratives by illustrating how accusations can serve personal vendettas amid media amplification. This tension mirrored broader societal frictions, including references to the 2012 Nirbhaya case and social media's role in preempting trials, often termed the "court of ," thereby highlighting risks of over . Such discussions extended to critiques of depictions as overly aggressive, challenging romanticized views of while attributing to the film a role in elevating #MenToo perspectives on false claims. In the Indian film industry, Section 375 advanced the courtroom drama by integrating post-2017 #MeToo reckonings with procedural realism, akin to predecessors like (2016), and influenced subsequent works to probe judicial integrity amid public scrutiny. It exemplified a shift toward depicting media's on verdicts and the ethical burdens on legal practitioners, though some analyses faulted Bollywood portrayals, including this , for sensationalizing systemic flaws in policing and courts. By 2025, its enduring relevance was affirmed in reflections on legal ambiguities, positioning it as a for socio-legal that encouraged nuanced examinations of power dynamics without presuming guilt.