The media profoundly shape human perception, influencing everything from consumer choices to societal norms. Modern cinema, in particular, plays a significant role in shaping public understanding of law, crime, and justice. While films serve as a powerful tool for storytelling, entertainment, and even education, they often blur the lines between reality and fiction, leading to misinterpretations of legal proceedings and criminal investigations.

One of the most concerning effects of cinema is its unintended role in influencing criminal behavior. Crime thrillers and investigative dramas now go to great lengths to depict the intricate details of criminal activities, forensic science, and legal loopholes. These movies meticulously illustrate how crimes are committed, how evidence is generated, and, more importantly, how it can be manipulated or destroyed. While this enhances cinematic authenticity, it also creates a dangerous precedent where individuals, consciously or subconsciously, draw inspiration from fictional narratives to commit real-world offenses.

In recent years, several cases have surfaced where criminals have confessed to adopting techniques shown in films to mislead law enforcement. For instance, detailed portrayals of forensic tampering, digital footprint manipulation, and witness intimidation in movies have led to real-life instances where perpetrators have attempted to evade justice using similar methods. The generalization of crime and its mechanics in cinema normalizes such behavior, making it seem more accessible or even justifiable to certain individuals.

The impact extends beyond crime itself. Courtroom dramas frequently sensationalize legal proceedings, portraying dramatic cross-examinations, exaggerated advocacy tactics, and distorted judicial processes. As a result, the public develops unrealistic expectations about the functioning of the legal system, often leading to misguided opinions on real-life trials and verdicts. This undermines the presumption of innocence and the right to a fair trial, both of which are protected under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution¹.

While cinema is undoubtedly a reflection of society, it also holds the power to shape societal attitudes. The question remains—where should the line be drawn between cinematic creativity and ethical responsibility?

Today, we see that individuals, influenced by cinematic portrayals of vigilante justice, often support or even attempt to emulate acts where heroes take the law into their own hands. Such portrayals, which glorify extrajudicial actions in the name of justice, risk normalizing unlawful behavior under the guise of morality. However, in reality, committing unlawful acts, even with good intentions, remains unacceptable within a legal framework.

A striking example of the media's role in shaping public perception is the case of Asfaq Alam, where extensive media coverage led to premature judgments before a legal verdict was reached. Alam, accused of heinous crimes, was widely criticized and condemned by the public based on emotionally charged media narratives rather than factual legal proceedings. Sensationalized reporting, combined with the public's exposure to dramatized courtroom scenarios in films, contributed to a trial by media, undermining the integrity of due process².

The widespread access to violent content through social media platforms has normalized exposure to real crimes, with some individuals even turning to the dark web to witness actual offenses. This desensitization, coupled with the glorification of criminal tactics in films, has troubling implications. For instance, the Malayalam movie Kurukkan showcases how a seemingly strong witness can be fabricated to manipulate judicial outcomes. Though fictional, it reflects a disturbing reality—how false testimonies can mislead investigations and courts, especially in the absence of rigorous cross-examination or corroborative evidence.

Similarly, Forensic portrays a highly intelligent criminal who meticulously orchestrates a crime scene, plants misleading evidence, and frames an innocent person. This narrative, while cinematic, closely parallels real-life cases where accused individuals have tampered with forensic evidence or exploited procedural gaps to escape justice. The Zahira Sheikh case exposed how external pressures can affect witnesses and derail justice³.

Another impactful film, Jana Gana Mana, dives deep into systemic manipulation within the justice system, showing how those in power can distort crime narratives for political or institutional gain. It mirrors societal fears about law enforcement and judicial complicity, echoing real-world controversies like the Hathras case, where the alleged mishandling by police and swift cremation of the victim's body sparked national outrage and demands for accountability.

These films, though fictional in form, tap into genuine anxieties about the justice system's vulnerability to corruption, manipulation, and media-driven narratives. They blur the line between legal fact and dramatic fiction, leaving audiences both informed and confused—empowered with awareness but often misled about the practical realities of legal processes. When cinematic portrayals reinforce mistrust in the judiciary or subtly endorse vigilantism, it becomes imperative to question where creative freedom should end and ethical responsibility begin.

An effective way to address the growing influence of cinema on public misconceptions about law and justice—including the glorification of crime, manipulation of legal procedures, and normalization of vigilante behavior—is to promote greater awareness among media professionals and filmmakers about the real-world consequences of their portrayals. Simultaneously, there is a pressing need for reformed censorship guidelines that do not suppress artistic freedom but ensure responsible storytelling. Content should aim to uplift, educate, and strengthen societal values, rather than sensationalize criminal behavior or undermine public trust in legal institutions.

As legal philosopher Ronald Dworkin emphasized, "Laws must be interpreted with a sense of moral responsibility and a vision for the public good"⁴. This aligns with the 2013 Report of the Committee on Media and Judiciary (India), which recommended a balanced regulatory approach to prevent media trials and preserve the integrity of the justice system⁵.

By aligning cinematic narratives with social responsibility, filmmakers can ensure that cinema becomes a force for enlightenment and justice, not distortion and danger.

End Notes:

1. Durga Das Basu, Introduction to the Constitution of India, LexisNexis, 2021.
2. Committee on Media and Judiciary, Report of the Committee on Media and Judiciary, Ministry of Information & Broadcasting, Government of India, 2013.
3. Zahira Habibullah Sheikh v. State of Gujarat, (2006) 3 SCC 374.
4. Ronald Dworkin, Law's Empire, Harvard University Press, 1986.
5. Ibid., Committee Report, 2013.