Section 375
- Director
- Ajay Bahl
- Studio
- Panorama StudiosSCIPL
- Release Date
- 13 September 2019
- Running Time
- 124 min
- Language
- Hindi
- Country
- India
- Budget
- ₹12.35 Cr
- Box Office
- ₹12.35 Cr
Cast
Review
Akshaye Khanna and Richa Chadha elevate what could have been a preachy courtroom drama into something genuinely thought-provoking, though the film doesn't entirely justify the weight of its ambitions. Director Niki Pandya constructs a tight legal narrative that hinges on the philosophical clash between Tarun Saluja's amoral pragmatism and Hiral Gandhi's idealistic pursuit of justice. The screenplay smartly avoids easy answers—the case itself remains deliberately murky, forcing viewers to grapple with uncomfortable questions about consent, power dynamics, and the gap between legal victory and moral truth. Khanna's restrained performance as the ethically detached lawyer is particularly commendable; he resists making the character villainous, instead presenting him as a man who has simply compartmentalized his conscience.
Where the film struggles is in its execution of nuance. The second half occasionally tips toward melodrama, especially in Chadha's monologues, which feel designed to convince the audience rather than let the argument breathe naturally. The supporting cast serves more as functional pieces than fully realized characters, and some courtroom sequences rely on theatrical flourishes that undermine the procedural realism the film otherwise strives for. Additionally, the film's ultimate stance—while clear in its moral positioning—becomes slightly preachy when it could have remained more ambiguous and powerful.
Yet for all its imperfections, Section 375 refuses to off
Storyline
So there's this famous film director named Rohan Khurana who gets arrested after a costume designer working with him, Anjali Dangle, accuses him of sexual assault. The case goes to the High Court where two lawyers end up facing off against each other — a super experienced defense attorney named Tarun Saluja who's taking Rohan's case, and Hiral Gandhi, who used to work under Tarun but left his firm because they had completely different approaches to law.
The thing that makes this case so interesting is that Tarun and Hiral have totally opposite philosophies about what their job actually means. Tarun believes lawyers should stay detached and focus purely on the facts and legal strategy, not get caught up in whether something feels morally right or wrong — basically, he sees himself as being in the business of law, not justice. Hiral, on the other hand, is all about actually fighting for what's right and getting emotionally invested in delivering real justice, which is exactly why she couldn't stick around working for Tarun before.
Throughout the trial, Tarun starts poking holes in the prosecution's case by revealing that witnesses might have tampered with evidence or hidden important facts. He builds this narrative that Anjali and Rohan actually had a consensual relationship that started because of job pressure, but then Anjali caught feelings for him while Rohan was only looking for something physical. It becomes this intense legal battle where both lawyers are trying to prove their version of the truth.
