MOVIE REVIEW: MULK

Submitted To:
MS. HINA ILIYAS
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, LAW OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM

Submitted By:
“

UTKARSHANI SRIVASTAVA
SEMESTER IX, SECTION:B, ROLL
NO: 170
B.A.LLB.(HONOURS)
019/2019/2159 ”

Date of Submission: 4th April, 2024

“Hidayatullah National Law University ”

“UPARWARA POST, ABHANPUR, NEW RAIPUR-492002 (C.G.) ”

 “DECLARATION OF ORIGINALITY

I, Utkarshani Srivastava, an tenth semester student with the roll number 170, hereby confirm
that this project is entirely my own work.”

“Utkarshani Srivastava

Semester: X

Section: B

Roll No: 170””

 INTRODUCTION

The director of the film showcases how people have been falling prey to the political
agendas that aims to create a polarisation in the country through religious division.
The movie sheds light on the bias that frequently influences how people view the
Muslim population in our nation. The film repeatedly emphasises that terrorism has no
religion throughout the dialogue-heavy plot. The film's tone is not subtle, and the
viewpoints are portrayed bravely. Its bold message highlights the fact that accepting
individuals of all religions with an open heart is essential for being a true Indian and
true patriot.

PLOT: A terrible catastrophe results from the involvement of a Muslim family from
Benaras' youngest son in terrorist activities. His actions have a severe consequence for
the family since they are forced to defend themselves in court proceedings and defend
themselves as law-abiding citizens rather than as anti-nationals.
 LEGAL ISSUES

The court proceedings in the movie were for the allegations put upon Bilaal
Mohammed. The allegation put on him were under:
1. Section 302 Indian Penal Code 1860: Punishment for murder
2. Section 120B Indian Penal Code 1860: Punishment of criminal conspiracy
3. Section 124A Indian Penal Code 1860: Sedition
4. Section 9B The Explosive Act, 1884: Punishment for certain offences
5. Section 16 Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967: Punishment for
Terrorist Act.

At later stage Murad Ali Mohmmed were also charged for the same offences.

UNDERMINING THE FOUNDATION: NON-COMPLIANCE WITH

BASIC PRINCIPLES OF THE ADVERSARIAL SYSTEM,
INCLUDING 'INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY’

Adversarial System: Unlike the inquisitional system, the adversarial system forms the basis
of the criminal justice system in India. In the inquisitorial system, a judge actively
participates in gathering evidence and rendering decisions. In an adversarial system, the roles
are reversible: the judge acts as a passive referee, while attorneys for the state and defense
participate actively in the proceedings. While the judge retains authority over the courtroom
in both scenarios, in the adversarial scenario, the judge serves as the law's servant rather
than its source.
Further, it is a system where the accused is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty
by legal means. Therefore, the government bears the burden of proof and must establish guilt
beyond a reasonable doubt.

Principal Of Innocence Until Proven Guilty: The common law requires the prosecution to
establish the prisoner's guilt regardless of the charge or venue of the trial; any attempt to
weaken this requirement should be rejected. 1 The fundamental tenet of our criminal law is
that the prosecution must always establish beyond a reasonable doubt all the elements of the
offense in order to establish the accused's guilt. The accused is entitled to the benefit of
reasonable doubt if there is one.2 The administration of criminal justice in India gives human
1
K.Veeraswamy v. Union of India and others [(1991)3 SCC 655].
2
V.D. Jhingam v. State of Utter Pradesh, AIR 1966 SC 1762.
rights and the dignity of human life a far higher priority. According to our legal system, a
person accused of a crime is deemed innocent they are proven guilty. They also have the
right to a fair trial, a thorough investigation, and the prosecution is supposed to take a
balanced approach to the case. To guarantee adherence to the fundamental rule of law, the
investigation should be swift, fair, judicious, and transparent. These are the cornerstones of
our criminal jurisprudence, and they fully align with the mandate outlined in Articles 20 and
21 of the Indian Constitution.3

Reasonable doubt : Assumption of innocence is a fundamental human right. In cases where

the court must decide which party to lean towards—the prosecution or the defense—when
there is a reasonable doubt about the prosecution's version of events, this court will, as a
matter of course and discretion, in accordance with judicial discretion, support the defense.
We have kept in mind the fundamental tenet that a conviction can only be upheld in the
absence of a reasonable doubt and that life and liberty are serious things.4

REFRENCE TO MOVIE: However in the movie at multiple instances the advocate has
made submission which were categorically against the principle and even in their
neighbourhood, where others accuse the whole family of being terrorists in an effort to
disgrace them in all manners. The phrase "Go back to Pakistan" is scrawled on their boundary
wall and stones are thrown inside the house.

The premise of the contention of the prosecutor was that terrorism is connected to religion
and hence he contended that based on the religion of the accused they are terrorist. The
prosecutor at multiple instances without the backing of evidence categorically stated in an
open court that “Bilal and his family brought up the kid to be a terrorist by making him
acquaintance with other terrorists and provoked him against Indian citizens, furthermore
they provided logistical support to execute terrorist act”, which a sheer representation of
violation of the principle,

The stone pelting, carving on the walls saying “Go back to Pakistan” were a depiction of
violation of the rights of the accused under the principle. Not just in the court but even
otherwise the whole family faced a abhorrence from the people in the society.

However, the court took an unbiased stance and ruled in favour of the defence as the case of
the prosecution was not established beyond reasonable doubt.

3
Manu Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2010) 6 SCC 1
4
Suresh Thipmppa Shetty v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1038
CHALLENGE TO THE PRINCIPLE: An important challenge regarding the successful
application of the 'innocent until proven guilty' principle arises from the significant number of
undertrial prisoners in India. Many people are actually viewed as guilty unless proven
innocent because of the hefty jail sentences and unforgiving prison environment. according to
NCRB is 77% of prisoners are undertrials in India5. As of 2021, 24,033 undertrials had
been imprisoned for three to five years, while 11,490 inmates had previously served more
than five years in jail without being found guilty6

The loop of unrestrained arrests, automated remand, and postponed bail hearings and trials
has resulted in an overcrowding of our institution. This was acknowledged by the Supreme
Court in Joginder Kumar v. State of UP. The court has issued a warning, stating that the
police should not always make an arrest merely because they have the authority to do so.
Instead, arrests should be considered the exception rather than the rule. The Parliament
changed Section 41 in 2009 to restrict the authority to make an arrest for crimes that are
punishable by up to seven years in prison. Additionally, the CrPC's Section 41(1)(b) lays out
requirements that must be met before an arrest can be made.

IDENTIFYING EVIDENTIARY GAPS

Although it was a fictional drama, but in reality, evidence play a crucial role in establishing
once case beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases and their admissibility is scrutinized at
the very first stage. The movie had following evidentiary fallacy:

1. Data on the Employment and Child Birth Rate in Islamic communities in India

This evidence that was given by the prosecution lawyer is irrelevant to the case
according to the Section 5 of the Evidence Act only relevant details or fact shall be
considered admissible evidence.

2. By Witness Iyat Mohmed (Sister)

The question that was asked by Iyat were irrelevant to the case. The questioning was
directed to prove that the whole family was cumulatively assisting in the terrorist
5
Singh, Udit. “Prison Statistics India 2022: Above 75% Prisoners Are under Trials, Actual Occupancy of
131% in Indian Prisons; 1.9% Incidence of Recidivism; Reasons of 63 Unnatural Deaths in Prisons Un
Known.” Www.livelaw.in, 7 Dec. 2023, www.livelaw.in/news-updates/ncrb-releases-prison-statistics-india-
report-2022-243973.
6
Chakraborty, Amisha Priyadarshini Dash & Sourav. “Confinement to a Cage: The Bridled under Trial
Prisoners in India.” Www.livelaw.in, 3 Apr. 2024, www.livelaw.in/articles/confinement-to-a-cage-the-bridled-
under-trial-prisoners-in-india-254046. Accessed 4 Apr. 2024.
 activities by questioning her on how she felt on the death of her brother. Under
section 148 and 149 gives power to the court to decide certain questions that shall not
be asked and that question that do not have reasonable grounds. Hence the question
posed to Iyat were not even remotely related to the merits of the case and would not
affect the opinion of the court hence there exist not reasonable grounds to consider the
statements made by Iyat admissible evidence.

3. Examination of Murad Ali Mohmmed

The examination of Murad Ali by the Prosecution lawyer was to establish the
bad character of Murad Ali by citing his previous involvements. However
under section 54 of the Evidence Act previous bad character is not relevant.

REASONED DECISION- The decision that was also given by the judge in the film is in my
opinion a reasoned one. Murad Ali Mohmmed shall be acquitted on merits and shall be
dismissed of all charges. Furthermore as the judge ion the movie, as part of its dicta
explained on the prejudice that exist in the society in regard to Muslims and the same
is being propagated for various political and social motives shall be discouraged. The
propaganda of connecting Terrorism with religion is downright catastrophic, as the
definition of terrorism nowhere includes or indicated religious involvement or its
connection the same shall be carried forward. Terrorists are not the agent of Islam but
they have been using Islam as shield for their terrorist activities, the same shall be
understood and prevented. I coincide with the judgment and the dicta given in the
movie by the judge.

Reality Rating(Out of 10 Stars)- 4/10

Movie Rating (Out of 10 Stars)- 7.5/10