Jolly LLB 3: ‘Nothing Objectionable Found’, Allahabad HC Dismisses Plea to Ban Film
Jolly LLB 3 is also under legal scrutiny in a Pune civil court (with summons issued to its cast and director) and faces PILs in the Patna and Madhya Pradesh High Courts over alleged disrespect to the judiciary
Jolly LLB 3, Allahabad High Court,Lucknow Bench
The Allahabad High Court at Lucknow Bench on September 2, 2025, dismissed a writ petition that sought to halt the release and circulation of the film Jolly LLB 3, alleging that its trailer and songs demean the judiciary and legal profession. The film is scheduled for a theatrical release on 19 September 2025.
The division bench of Justice Sangeeta Chandra and Justice Brij Raj Singh held that the petitioners had failed to first approach the statutory authorities empowered to deal with such grievances and, on merits, found no objectionable content in the material produced before the court.
The petition, filed by advocates Jay Vardhan Shukla and another, had sought wide-ranging reliefs, including a ban on the film’s release, removal of the promotional song “Bhai Vakeel Hai” from digital platforms, revocation of any certification granted by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC), and a direction to the director, actors, and producers of the film to issue a public apology. The petitioners further pressed for stringent guidelines to prevent certification of films that portray the judiciary or lawyers in a derogatory light.
According to the petitioners, the trailer of Jolly LLB 3 presents advocates and the judicial system in a scandalous manner for commercial gain, thereby lowering the dignity of the courts in the eyes of the public. They argued that such depictions amount to contempt of court, defame the institution, and prejudice the minds of practicing advocates. It was further contended that the CBFC had failed in its statutory duty under the Cinematograph Act, 1952 by certifying the film despite provisions barring content that scandalises the judiciary or offends public decency. The petitioners also claimed that the film discourages students from entering the legal profession and creates disillusionment among law graduates.
The Union of India, represented by Senior Advocate and Deputy Solicitor General S.B. Pandey, opposed the petition on maintainability grounds. It was submitted that before approaching the high court, the petitioners ought to have availed remedies under the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021. These rules, framed under the IT Act, allow any aggrieved person to approach the relevant intermediary or publisher to lodge a grievance against objectionable online content. A writ of mandamus, the government argued, cannot be issued unless the authorities concerned have first been called upon to act and either refuse or neglect to do so.
The bench found substance in this preliminary objection, noting that the petitioners had not made any representation to the CBFC or initiated proceedings under the 2021 Rules before invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of the court.
On examining the material itself, the court found no reason to interfere. The judges observed that despite the petitioners’ claims, the trailers and teasers of Jolly LLB 3 did not contain any objectionable content that could be considered derogatory to the judiciary or advocates. Likewise, the lyrics of the song “Bhai Vakeel Hai” were not found to hinder the dignity of the legal profession or affect advocates’ ability to discharge their duties.
Concluding that the petition was devoid of merit, the high court dismissed it without imposing costs on the petitioners.
Case Title: Jay Vardhan Shukla And Another vs. UOI and 6 Others
Order Date: September 2, 2025
Bench: Justice Sangeeta Chandra and Justice Brij Raj Singh