To accept the premise of Court is to submit oneself to the rules of a Kafkaesque society and the cynicism that comes along with it. That you will never reach the conclusion of the bizarre court case that is ongoing here, is a given from the first scene. A Big Brother-like entity descending upon the accused — performing in front of his audience — takes us by the collar and lands us in the extremely painful environment of the court proceedings. The charges are absurd in nature and the proceedings of the court fortify the thought that this labyrinthine tale will never reach its conclusion.

What we are in our public personas, sitting in chairs that signify secular authority, is juxtaposed with the private lives of the three most important individuals who become part of these proceedings after the accusations are levelled against the accused. The humble background of the public prosecutor, the affluence of the defense lawyer and the summer holidays of the sessions court judge clearly seem to point at the malaise that exists in the society. It is difficult to say who the protagonist of this story is. Or probably, it is the story of three individuals criss-crossing each others’ lives for the same court case.

Since childhood we have heard the phrase, “Police aur court-kachehri ke chakkar mein kaun padega?” (who wants to get trapped in the unending loop of the police and a court case?) and it is this chakkar that you get to witness in this film. Not at any point does the film focus on the trials of an individual, nor does it get into the detailed history of the alleged crime committed. The true perpetrator of the crime is probably behind the camera: an all pervasive entity that swoops down every time it decides to play havoc with somebody’s life. The middle class has risen and has become one of the most important growth kernels in India’s history. But the movie dissects and analyses this rise of economic power vis-a-vis a broadening of world views. The judge who ideally should be a truly rational man is given to the temptations of the superstitious kind in his private life. His rationality in private life is dependent on data points of convenience and the authority that belongs to his professional life is subsumed in his private life. He rattles off data about the absurd salaries of MBA professionals with a sense of declaration that if they expect us judges to be more efficient in our professional lives then may be they need to pay us more. That these salaries are not just exorbitant but definitely fictitious, is irrelevant to the judge. He is passing a judgement on the society as a whole without basing it in facts. And he drives his judgement in the direction of his choosing and convenience based on these conjured-up facts.

The two other forces facing off each other are the extremely contrasting personal and professional lives of the public prosecutor and the defense attorney. One coming from the lower rungs of the middle class, traveling in crowded public transport and going home to cook for her family in a small one-room-kitchen — possibly government-allotted house — and the other living in a fancy apartment, traveling to courthouses in his luxury sedan. The distance between the public prosecutor and the accused is lesser than that of the defense lawyer and the defendant. But this lack of distance leads not to empathy but disgust. She wants to desperately move away from the webs of her not-so-luxurious life and the accused represents those rungs she might have navigated herself. She has no sympathy or even empathy for the accused representing the scum of life she has left behind. She would rather that all these people (accused and the like) be put behind the bars and be done with it.

On the other hand, the distance between the defense lawyer and the defendant could not be more. But he comes to his aid in charity. He cries alone in the night when he is attacked and his face is blackened for he is grappling with his choices of defending the poor and defenseless and how he could have taken the easier route of making money in a system that is favourable to those who wish to make millions. His choice of not having married and living alone in his house, drinking himself to sleep are tied to his inability to find people who understand him and could share his mind-space. He goes to pubs with his friends, possibly only joined at the hip for their common denominator of money. He enjoys himself in these situations but longs for a just world that provides for all. In his empathy he stands alone, much like the director, I suspect. In his battle for finding neverland the director understands the fabric of this society so well that he feels hopeless. He is sure of one thing only. That there is no hope.

During the scene when the lights go off in the empty courtroom one by one, we see his hopelessness painted across the canvas of our minds. The sighing camera slowly disappears into the darkness and stays there, making it the uncomfortable truth of the nature of being us. It lets us grapple in the dark of the lack of solution to this system which while created to serve and protect us does not allow us to express our thoughts without repercussions. The world exists beyond the walls of this courtroom, the one where the the principle characters exist. You do not get into the life of the accused/defendant, you only understand the people enmeshed in the web of the justice system. Justice will never be done because judgments are pronounced by human beings, individuals who can not shed their personalities and bring the balance of the constitution into the courtroom they serve. It is probably the courtroom they serve and not the voiceless humans who are brought in to the room repeatedly to be abused and censured. After the accused is exonerated of the crimes he is brought back in for defending against a different set of charges, just as absurd and arbitrary in nature as the first one and the cycle (court-kachehri ka chakkar) of justice persists.

-Abhinav