Over-The-Top Justice on OTT Courtroom Drama 

Contemporary films and shows have depicted the justice-delivery system in numerous ways. However, the common aggrieved person still views justice the same way he did a century ago: with hope, anticipation and faith. To him, justice is not the means – it is the end. It is not the instrument leading to his happiness; it is the very outcome that will restore basic sanity. Digital media platforms have the opportunity – and the obligation – to depict this pressing need for justice through compelling and inclusive narratives, while balancing fiction with fact. 

Take, for example, a poor young widow from a patriarchal society. Her dilemmas cannot be reduced to a single narrative; there is so much to show. Emotionally she is distraught. Financially she is ruined. Economically she is desperate. Socially she is ostracized. A movie cannot do justice to her grief; but it can surely be an earnest attempt.

In real life, a humanitarian bench can order an equitable relief to help improve her financial condition and may even assist her in seeking employment. But the court cannot convince her family to accept her need and willingness to work. It cannot educate her community that she is a human first, then a widow; that she merits empathy and support, not callousness and prejudice. Digital content must show these multi-dimensional aspects for the viewer to be aware, understand and empathize. Brevity cannot be an excuse for frivolity.

What we see today on our screens, however, is a trimmed vignette that reduces justice to drama. Narrow sensationalized snapshots overpower broader redressal complexities.  

Relief isn’t Always Remedy
The idea of justice has been understood differently over the years, giving rise to differing expectations of what a judicial outcome must truly bring, for the aggrieved party and society. After all, a crime is an offence not just against the individual, but against society at large. It is established – dare we say, as truth – that a judgment cannot be equitable for all. There is almost always a trade-off; always an opportunity cost; inevitably an interest that cannot be proportionately catered to. Having said that, there are two lines of thought – archival and contemporary – that meet at crossroads: a philosophy and a digital media extract.

Utilitarianism, a moral theory finding its core in normative ethics (which addresses “what should be”) states that the determining factor for the most moral action is whether it maximizes well-being for the maximum number of people. It is noteworthy that the theory does not propound that every stakeholder involved must be happy – it merely says most.

Yes, and? This theory isn’t restricted to classroom discussions in sociology, history or law. It’s omnipresent. It’s in the way our judiciary verdicts, our democracy functions and our country progresses. Upon bare understanding of the theory, the implementation of greatest happiness for the greatest number of people seems to be actionable and even fair… until it isn’t.

A contemporary showcase of the practical reality of this theory was visible in the Netflix show Maamla Legal Hai (Season 2), where an apprehensive lawyer is advised by her senior: “Justice doesn’t exist. It’s the absence of injustice…the lesser injustice is justice.” Food for thought. 

Misaligned Portrayal 

This makes you think. Scenes in legal thrillers and courtroom dramas mirror a deeply elitist version of justice in reality, particularly for the downtrodden. Think about it. Isn’t it commonplace to watch a morally skewed man emerging victorious and seeking shade from a well-deserved penalty – and how does this reflect upon deterrence to potential offenders? Something to ponder. Legal safeguards aren’t enough to deter future crimes – societal condemnation is the need of the hour. An opportunistic platform is the content we watch.

Crime is an offence against society. The people involved are real individuals – with real sentiments and differing moral scales. They must be depicted as such. This is vital as entertainment is one of the most impressionable sources of understanding socio-legal nuance, particularly for the layman. Content isn’t just pastime anymore; it can shape worldviews and moral judgments. Cinematic dramatics without relatable substance is a reflection of superficial thinking. Showing the tip of the iceberg as the entire ocean has misleading impacts on society, the most vulnerable target being the youth.

When a judge takes a decision of acquittal, for instance – yes, even in a make-believe world on a screen – the viewer must be provided full judicial disclosure. A complete breakdown of the law as it is: provisions, exceptions, provisos, mitigating circumstances, so on and so forth. Why that person was saved from harsh punishment. That’s one option – which admittedly has less appeal. But there’s a second option: showing the viewer the test of proportionality – or “an eye for an eye”. It is not merely a jurisprudential adage; it is a morally conscious instrument that leaves room for retribution. The third option is leaving room for interpretation, lest layered realities trample upon artistic exploration. Nonetheless, by understanding how to correctly strike balance, OTT can highlight consequences for committing offences – punitive, individual and societal – enabling viewers to grow a mature understanding of their society.

The conspectus is this: and it’s incredibly critical. A viewer should not plan transgression of the law after, for example, watching a scene where the real offender escapes when emotions outweigh legalese, which can be worsened by no explanation of either the law or of the true ramifications of committing such offences. Half-baked knowledge is the most dangerous type of knowledge. While probably intended to be part of a storyline designed to impress, such scenes aren’t whimsical. In fact, they aren’t just misleading – they can be disastrous.

What now?
Crime rates aren’t reducing on their own. Neither are recidivism rates. The saying is true to a very large extent: “Where there is a will, there is a way”. Unfortunately, this extends to the commission of offences – whether minor, serious or heinous – without fear of punishment. So, what now? The text of the law is undoubtedly becoming more stringent and broader – now even attempting to render justice through reformation such as by community service – but this is at the top of the structure. At the very bottom, efforts seem inadequate.

A bottoms-up approach is needed to tackle this problem. The foundation must be made robust: movies should unabashedly depict the law – multi-faceted, complex, grey-area-laden – precisely how the law is; how humans are. This is the bare minimum. Inspiration can be drawn from shows and films that tackle contemporary issues: by identifying root issues at the cross-section of law and society and churning them into well-reflected, relatable content.

Filmmakers, directors and producers must undertake the highest order of diligence to ensure that the content they put out is not merely creative. They must ensure that it communicates the right thoughts, creates seriousness in the law (this can be done while making it engaging and entertaining!) and most importantly, connects with the grassroots of the system and the nation: with real aggrieved parties who probably never got “justice” the way envisioned.