Analysis of The Movie "Pink" by Aniruddha Roy Chowdhury

The movie “PINK” directed by Aniruddha Roy Chowdhary revolves around the plot of a courtroom where we can see the plight of women and their thorny day to day struggles in life to which all women can relate to be it young or old. Almost every girl has been in that position or missed it by a whisker of timing. It’s a blazing indictment showing what’s wrong with us and the society.

The struggles can and may include defamation like the female leads in the movie suffer during their stay and after the incidents happen. Or be it molestation, threatening or eve teasing. It shows us how far women are buried under the crippling patriarchy and misogyny. It basically revolves around how the proceedings happen and how innocents are mostly intimidated by the superiors and their voice and thoughts are supressed.

It also shows that how one person or one incident can change your life for good or bad. As seen in movie Deepak the lawyer changed their bad times into good even though he came out as a little spine chilling person and as far as male leads are concerned we can see them in good light for a good period.Three Delhites - Minal (Taapsee), Falak (Kirti) and Lavender (Andrea) – are running to save themselves after one of them escapes a molestation attempt by a mulish powerful guy, Rajveer (Angad). Minal attacks Rajveer with a bottle injuring him grievously. This starts the dog and cat chase. Their lives are turned into a wreaking havoc by the guys who malign and intimidate them in every way possible. The breaking point for girls is when Rajveer uses his strong connections to file a wrong FIR against the girls labelling them prostitutes.

The prosecution council keeps on intimidating the girls , after a point in which they breakdown and accept thing and accusations they did not do. The male leads keeps on misleading the court by adding few facts that were different then the real ones and giving fake witnesses and evidences.

After the matter comes up in court the retired defence lawyer Deepak Sehgall (Amitabh), represents the girls, then film takes a dramatic turn. “‘No’ is not just a word but an whole meaning full sentence,” he says in an overwhelming tone, as part of his closing argument, speaking of ‘consent’ — something presumed for good and bad in relationships.

The conflict in the movie is, after a rock concert the male leads and female leads go for dinner and drinks together where male leads inappropriately touches two of the female leads and in the heat of moment one of the female lead smashes the bottle on the male lead’s head as an act of self-defence, grievously injuring him and then running away from scene.

Later we can see the male lead’s cousin trying to seek revenge by threatening them, intimidating them and also kidnapping one the lead and outraging her modesty when they file case against them.

The legal principles which are profoundly discussed in the movie are:

Outraging Women's Modesty

Under article 354 of the Penal Code states that any crime against women that stop short of penetration, in which it becomes an incident of rape. It is the crux of intention that should be kept in mind sometimes as to not let the accused run away free by exercising his rights and information in wrong manner.

It is a false and unprivileged statement of fact that is harmful to someone's reputation and causing loss. It comes under law of tort and under section 499 of IPC under the heading of Reasonable restrictions.

Wrongfully restraining any person in such a manner as to prevent that person form proceeding beyond certain circumscrI clearly agree with all the judgement and sentences passed by the judge Sanjay in this case except for the fact that he let go Vishwa with a just a warning because he tried to help the female leads and was not involved deeply in the incident whereas all his partners were punished.

He might or could have been punished under the same offences as Ankit and Dumpy i.e. wrongful confinement, Criminal Intimidation and defamation.

Consent Matter - A concept lost to many Indian Men

When a person says no, it means only one thing. No grabbing. No forcing. Take that groping hand and mouth away. It isn’t easy. Person isn’t of loose morals. They are not, never, ever, asking for it. It can also be a prelude to stronger language if the aggressor in question refuses to back off.

Constantly scoped by the prying eyes of neighbours who deduce her character based on when she returns home and the guests she entertains, it is an unsettling world. Ibing limits.

Under section 503 read with 506 of IPC Whoever threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation or property, or to the person or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested, with intent to cause alarm to that person, or to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat, commits criminal intimidation. Shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

Attempt to Murder

Under 307 of IPC mens rea for murder includes an intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm where there is virtual certainty of death resulting and acting on it and failing to cause death.

Under Section 100 of IPC it is stated that right for private defence can be exercised in cases where it may cause grievous hurt or rape. And if it involuntarily results to death then the accused cannot be held liable.

‘Section 233’ of the Indian Penal Code has been amended to give women the right to kill someone who tries to rape her. The court acquitted the female leads without any punishment or liability since Minal’s act of Grievous hurt and attempt to murder was the result of Provocation which needed no evidence and Private defence.

And the charges of Extortion had no will and evidence to back it up. Whereas it punished Rajveer under Section 354 of IPC for outraging Women’s Modesty and Dumpy and Ankit were punished under Article 503 read with 506 and Article 499 of IPC for Criminal Intimidation and Defamation and for Wrongful Confinement. And Vishwa was let off with a warning.