Vidya Bhardwaj

It seems like they are resorting to buying positive reviews and ratings. It's amusing to see Bollywood trying to manipulate the media and critics to generate positive buzz. However, let me provide a detailed critique, point by point, and expose their flaws. Before the film's release, I came across an interview with Manoj Bajpai and the director, where they claimed that the movie isn't about any specific guru but rather focuses on a lawyer and his multiple cases, truth, and justice. Let's accept that for now. However, the film begins with a disclaimer stating that it's a work of fiction and everything depicted is imaginary. If it's a work of fiction, how can we trust it more than any other fictional story? The filmmakers took creative liberty and infused elements of hate towards Hindu gurus to further their agenda, a trend that has unfortunately persisted in Bollywood for a long time. They based the film on an ongoing trial that has only gone through the session court and is yet to be tried in the high court. They used the name of a real-life lawyer, PC Solanki, as a decoy, who is currently facing legal action from fellow lawyers and the bar council for malpractice. This lawyer apparently sold his life rights in questionable deals to the filmmakers, which is against the law. As per legal norms, a practicing lawyer cannot sell rights that might undermine an ongoing trial or compromise the identity of a victim under the POCSO Act. This raises several questions: Since the film distances itself from being factually accurate, how can it claim to represent reality or champion truth? The authenticity of the film and the motives of the filmmakers become questionable. The film and its creators deny that it is about a specific guru, but film critics insist that it is based on a particular case involving a religious leader. Who influenced these critics to speak in this manner? If the film is not specifically about the mentioned guru or case, why does it include a disclaimer? Why fictionalize reality instead of presenting the real names and events? Allow me to provide an answer. The filmmakers initially intended to make a film about a particular Hindu guru, but they were aware that the case was still under trial. As per the law, there is no final verdict yet, as the session court's decision can be overturned by the high court. So, why rush to make a film based on an unresolved case? Are these filmmakers above the constitution? Shouldn't freedom of speech come with responsibility? Knowing this, they used a secondary lawyer, PC Solanki, and acquired his life rights (despite him not being a key player in the case). They attempted to create a fictionalized film that closely resembled reality but manipulated the facts, marketing it as a story based on real events. They deliberately tapped into the negative emotions fueled by a biased media trial of a case that awaits its high court trial. They carefully orchestrated the release on an OTT platform to avoid scrutiny from the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) and the courts, as India lacks sufficient regulations for OTT content that misuses freedom of speech. However, the Indian audience is astute and did not fall for this propaganda film, which is why the filmmakers are now resorting to buying five-star reviews. It's truly shameful.