Rajkummar Rao And Two Visions Of The Legal System

In 2012, Rajkummar Rao played Shahid Azmi, the Mumbai lawyer who defended people accused of terrorism, in Hansal Mehta’s Shahid. The performance announced an actor capable of making conviction legible without turning it into a display of righteousness.

Azmi’s courage resided not in grand gestures but in his willingness to defend the rights of people whom much of the public had already condemned.

Fourteen years later, Rao has returned to the world of criminal law in Avinash Arun’s Prahaar: The Untold Story of Ujjwal Nikam, playing the public prosecutor who became a prominent figure in the prosecution of Ajmal Kasab, the sole surviving attacker captured during the 2008 Mumbai terror attacks.

The two films place Rao on opposite sides of the courtroom, but their more interesting difference lies in how they understand justice.

Shahid is concerned with the distance between legal procedure and public opinion. Its protagonist works within a system whose commitment to due process is tested by political pressure and communal prejudice. Rao does not make Azmi a saint. Instead, he gives the character a mixture of determination, vulnerability, and ordinary human restlessness.

The performance is compelling partly because it refuses to treat moral courage as a quality that exists outside everyday life. Azmi’s principles are not abstractions; they are commitments that shape his relationships, his professional choices, and his exposure to danger.

Prahaar approaches the law from a different direction. Its central figure is a prosecutor tasked with establishing the guilt of a man implicated in an atrocity that remains part of India’s collective memory.

The film follows the legal battle against Kasab, a process that required the state to prove its case even amid overwhelming public anger.

Here, justice becomes a question of how a democratic institution responds to violence without abandoning the procedures that distinguish it from the violence it condemns.

Rao’s work in the two films invites a comparison of acting styles as much as political perspectives. In Shahid, his performance draws strength from an impression of lived experience. In Prahaar, the effort to reproduce Nikam’s mannerisms and public persona sometimes makes the performance more visibly constructed.

The distinction is not necessarily a failure of craft. The characters occupy different public positions, and a prosecutor whose professional identity has been shaped by high-profile trials presents a different dramatic problem from a lawyer whose work challenges popular assumptions about guilt.

Yet the comparison exposes a difficulty shared by biographical cinema. The temptation to turn a complicated professional into a heroic figure can flatten the very institutions that make the story consequential.

Prahaar is most interesting when it recognises that even a defendant accused of an appalling crime is entitled to legal representation, and that a prosecution must be built through evidence rather than public fury. At other moments, its emphasis on the prosecutor’s determination risks making the man more compelling than the legal principles he serves.

The distance between the two films is therefore not simply the distance between a defence lawyer and a prosecutor. Both stories depend on the possibility that justice requires something more exacting than the satisfaction of public sentiment.

Rao’s return to the courtroom offers a way to consider how Hindi cinema imagines that responsibility, and how easily the individual hero can overshadow the institution whose integrity ought to matter most.

ALSO READ | Candid With Kenny Deori Basumatary