Section 375

In a seminar shown as a flashback, Tarun Saluja proclaims that 'Law is a fact, Justice is abstract' and argues that a lawyer should not be emotionally involved in a case. He suggests that the pursuit of justice becomes a career opportunity for the defense, prosecution, and judges. The seminar contrasts Tarun's cynical view with Hiral Gandhi's belief that justice must be pursued passionately.

Notable film director Rohan Khurana is arrested after assistant costume designer Anjali Dangle accuses him of rape and is convicted by a sessions court. The case moves through the legal process, setting the stage for Tarun Saluja's challenge in the High Court. This public dispute centers on whether the accusation can be proven under the penal code.

In the High Court, Tarun Saluja cross-examines key witnesses, exposing tampering and untruths. He proposes that Anjali had a past consensual relationship with Rohan that began under job pressure, and that she later grew emotionally involved. The exchange highlights a central legal question about consent and rape.

The relationship between Rohan and Anjali is depicted as volatile; Rohan belittles her and claims that without him her career is over, then throws her out of his second flat. After a couple of days, Anjali apologizes to Rohan and they rekindle their relationship. This back-and-forth sets the stage for the subsequent report to police.

Later in the day, after rekindling, Anjali reports the incident as rape to the police. The formal accusation triggers police investigation and subsequent courtroom proceedings. The move intensifies the clash between personal history and legal definitions of consent.

The bench faces a tough choice as public perception suggests that the rich exploit the underprivileged, while the legal evidence remains contested. The judges deliberate in their chamber, weighing the merits of the case against mounting protests. A glimpse of protests from the balcony foreshadows the external pressure on the verdict.

The bench delivers a verdict that acknowledges Tarun's arguments but adheres to the letter of the law, upholding the session court's finding. It states that, in the absence of clear evidence of consent or force in the incident, the victim's statement is given paramount importance. The decision reflects a strict application of legal standards over public sentiment.

Following the verdict, Rohan's wife Kainaz tells him she will not aid him anymore and leaves. Her decision marks a personal consequence of the public and judicial unraveling of Rohan's life. The relationship strain underscores the broader social impact of the case.

Tarun promises Rohan that he will approach the Supreme Court immediately to challenge the verdict. The commitment signals the legal battle's continuation beyond the High Court and into higher courts. The move preserves Tarun's principled stance on the law's procedural pathways.

Anjali confesses in secret to Hiral that Tarun's statements in court were true and that she acted out of revenge against Rohan. The revelation reframes the narrative around motive and credibility in the case. Hiral's reaction shifts as she reassesses the pursuit of justice.

Hiral is shocked by Anjali's confession and is later invited to dinner by Tarun's family. During the gathering, Tarun reiterates his famous line, 'We're in the business of law, not of Justice,' a principle that Hiral comes to truly understand. The moment links the case's philosophy to personal belief.