As Sibal urged the bench to see the film, Justice Gogoi said "We will not see the film. We will tell you why we will not see the film. We don't have three hours' patience. Don't you think that three hours is too long." The Aurangabad bench of the Bombay High Court set up the committee to see the film after a Nanded lawyer, Ajaykumar Waghmare, told the court that the film was an attempt to portray the country's legal profession and the judicial system in a poor light. It is "an attempt to portray the Indian legal profession and judicial system as a laughing stock to society at large", Waghmare told the High Court. The High Court directed for the review of the film by the panel on February 1 and set the next hearing on February 3.
As Sibal urged the bench to see the film, Justice Gogoi said "We will not see the film. We will tell you why we will not see the film. We don't have three hours' patience. Don't you think that three hours is too long." The Aurangabad bench of the Bombay High Court set up the committee to see the film after a Nanded lawyer, Ajaykumar Waghmare, told the court that the film was an attempt to portray the country's legal profession and the judicial system in a poor light. It is "an attempt to portray the Indian legal profession and judicial system as a laughing stock to society at large", Waghmare told the High Court. The High Court directed for the review of the film by the panel on February 1 and set the next hearing on February 3.