Jolly LLB 3 Song Faces Fresh PIL in MP High Court Over Depiction of Lawyers

Jabalpur, MP – The popular film franchise 'Jolly LLB' is once again under judicial scrutiny as a fresh Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has been filed before the Madhya Pradesh High Court, challenging the song 'Bhai Wakeel Hai' from the upcoming third installment. The petition contends that the song's depiction of lawyers is derogatory and trivializes the dignity of the legal profession, reigniting the debate on the delicate balance between artistic freedom and professional decorum.

The writ petition, Pranjal Tiwari v State of MP (WP 34454/2025) , filed by Advocate Pranjal Tiwari, is slated to be heard on September 9. It specifically targets the song's portrayal of actors, dressed as advocates, dancing in a manner that the petitioner argues "ridicules the legal fraternity." A central point of contention is the use of the advocate's 'neck band' during the dance sequence, which the plea describes as "a symbol of dignity, responsibility and solemn duty in the legal profession."

This new legal challenge emerges shortly after a similar petition was dismissed by the Allahabad High Court, creating a compelling scenario of potentially divergent judicial perspectives on the same issue.

The Core Allegations: Decency, Morality, and Professional Dignity

Represented by Advocate Pramod Singh Tomar, the petitioner in the Madhya Pradesh High Court argues that the creative license taken by the filmmakers crosses a legal and ethical line. The plea asserts that the song's content is not merely a satirical take but a direct affront to the legal community.

The primary legal objections raised in the petition are twofold:

• Violation of the Cinematograph Act, 1952: The petition claims the song's depiction contravenes the principles outlined in Section 5B of the Act. This section stipulates that a film shall not be certified for public exhibition if, in the opinion of the certifying authority, the film or any part of it is against the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, or involves defamation or contempt of court. The petitioner argues that the "objectionable, obscene and derogatory lyrics" and the accompanying visuals fall foul of the "decency or morality" clause, alleging they "encourage vulgarity and have a negative impact on Youth."

• Reasonable Restrictions on Freedom of Speech: The petitioner invokes Article 19(2) of the Constitution of India, which places reasonable restrictions on the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a). The plea contends that while artistic expression is a protected right, it is not absolute. The restrictions in the interest of "decency, morality and prevention of contempt of court" are applicable here, making the song's content an overstep of constitutionally permissible expression.

The petition seeks immediate relief by praying for an order to restrain the exhibition, telecast, and circulation of the song across all media platforms. Furthermore, it requests a directive for the respondents, likely including the film's producers and the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC), to dispose of the petitioner's representation "by passing a speaking and reasoned order within a stipulated time period."

A Contrasting View from the Allahabad High Court

The legal landscape for this dispute is complicated by a recent, and contrary, judicial pronouncement. A separate petition seeking to restrain the release of 'Jolly LLB 3' on similar grounds—that it allegedly defamed the judiciary and the legal profession—was recently dismissed by a division bench of the Allahabad High Court.

The bench, comprising Justice Sangeeta Chandra and Justice Brij Raj Singh, took a starkly different view. After reviewing the material in question, the court concluded that it "did not find any objectionable matter to warrant interference by this Court." The bench specifically addressed the controversial song, stating, "We have also gone through the lyrics of the song 'Bhai Vakeel Hai' and we do not find anything which may interfere in the practice of the legal profession by genuine Advocates."

This dismissal by a different High Court provides significant persuasive precedent that the respondents in the Madhya Pradesh case will almost certainly leverage. It sets the stage for a nuanced legal battle where the MP High Court will have to consider whether the arguments presented by Advocate Pranjal Tiwari raise new points of law or fact that distinguish it from the matter decided by the Allahabad High Court.

Legal Analysis: The Recurring Conflict Between Cinema and the Courtroom

The 'Jolly LLB' franchise, known for its satirical commentary on the Indian legal system, has a history of facing legal challenges. While celebrated for bringing courtroom realities to a mass audience, its satirical tone has often been perceived by some members of the bar as a caricature that undermines the profession's gravity.

The current PIL hinges on the interpretation of "decency" and "morality" under the Cinematograph Act and the Constitution. Courts have historically been cautious when intervening in matters of artistic expression, often emphasizing that satire, parody, and even harsh criticism are vital components of a vibrant democracy. The threshold for what constitutes a violation of decency or morality is high, and typically requires content that is obscene, lascivious, or has a clear tendency to deprave and corrupt.

The petitioner’s focus on the advocate's neck band as a sacred symbol is a powerful emotional and professional argument. For many in the legal fraternity, the uniform is not mere attire but an embodiment of their oath and duty. The argument is that using this symbol in a flippant or "ridiculing" context dilutes its significance and, by extension, the public's respect for the profession.

However, the opposing view, as reflected by the Allahabad High Court's decision, is that the public is capable of distinguishing between cinematic fiction and reality. A satirical song in a movie, even if it uses the symbols of the profession, may not necessarily translate into a tangible negative impact on the "practice of the legal profession by genuine Advocates."

The outcome in the Madhya Pradesh High Court will be closely watched. It could either align with the Allahabad High Court's hands-off approach, reinforcing the high bar for judicial censorship of art, or it could chart a different course, giving more weight to the argument that the portrayal erodes the dignity of a pillar of the justice system. The hearing on September 9 will provide the first indication of which way the judicial winds in Madhya Pradesh are blowing.