How are those characters in movie helpful to develop legal knowledge? Like Rajmata Sivagami, Bhaahubali Shivudu, Bhallala, Bijjaladeva, Kattappa, Devasena, etc…? Your insights?

Noble Queen Sivagami promises her son Bhallala about marriage with Devasena unaware of ongoing facts, which her son knows but contrives those facts to arrive at an unlawful benefit for himself. Queen’s understanding or assumption of fact is positive but Bhallala’s understanding or consumption of fact is negative. There is son’s responsibility to share all facts available within knowledge particularly when he has orchestrated dialogues with ulterior motives of illegally capturing power by satisfying an unlawful arrangement of marriage with Devasena. This betrayal of trust by son to mother is a betrayal of trust by aspiring prince of State to an existing Queen of Constitutional power and authority of State (Mahishmati). Let us see the legal maxims that can be analyzed here. It is “ex injuria jus non oritur–legal obligations do not arise from un-just” from queen’s side and, “animus nocendi–intention to harm” from prince’s side. It is “condicio sine qua non–a condition without which it could not be” and, “consensus facit legem–consensus makes laws and rights”. Similarly, “injuria non excusat injuriam–two wrongs will not make a right”. Now let see other characters. Bijjaladeva’s misleading arguments and torted innuendos are “ex facie–on the fact of it” a pure “mala fide, ab initio–bad faith, from beginning”. It is concerted “dolus specialis–specific deceit”. Finally, it is, “magis de bono quam de malo lex intendit –law is in favour of a good than of a bad intention”. All these legal principles are part of Indian Dharma or jurisprudential interpretations on conduct of State and people as per Constitutional Law and canons of Administrative Law and service.

Devasena’s character shows many things. Woman without dilution in her freedoms, choices and liberties, strength to fight based on capacities, self-empowered independence and social dignity, knowledge to question highest authorities of State, discriminative power on legal and illegal things, capability of legal argumentations, logic and reasoning, trial and evidence, principles of natural justice, innocence till guilty beyond doubt etc. This can explain what should be conditions of the nature of State and state of Nature as seen in Gandhiji’s writings or, Sri Aurobindo’s political thoughts from “Ideal of Human Unity and Human Cycle” that immensely contribute to development and implementation of correct legal knowledge. When Devasena questions king as to how law changes according to people when circumstances are same it is “ubi eadem ratio, ibi eadem lex; et de similibus idem est judicium–where there is same reason, there is same law; concerning things similar, verdict is similar”. Or when a soldier conceals fact or lies as against facts which Devasena represents and implicates false punishment to her, it is “officium nemini debet esse damnosum–a duty should be injurious to no one”. Bhaahubali’s immediate rescue is a “praesidium victima–protect the victim”.

Bhaahubali sets an example of how one can selflessly and impersonally handle most attractive form and enjoyment of life; which is power and authority to rule a State. Yet, one can see in his impersonal nature, a warm heart that wins people even in adverse circumstances. He sticks to Dharma, Rule of Law or an ideal value of life that contributes to larger social collectivity and wellbeing. This Bhaahubali does neither for his own sake nor for sake of any higher authority, but for the sake of Dharma itself. This Indian idea of Dharma is nothing but the dynamic Truth that prevails and protects people’s lives. Bhaahubali’s commitment to speak truth, to utter only Rule of law even against queen who is his own mother or even against his own coronation, to sacrifice power and finally himself in order to save promises he has assured, show his confidence on his multiple capacities and balance of nature between individual being and collective social-being. These are not merely psychological qualities as they seem to be so in their appearance, but are actual protective powers of Dharma that help life as a whole. This selfless, impersonal, kind, dynamic, knowledgeable and capable nature of Bhaahubali as per standards of Dharma is in fact a definition of State, its agents and functionaries. State and its functionaries (three organs) ought to possess these higher qualities when they render daily services to State and society. State serves public, “res publica–all things subject to concern by citizens”.

Kattappa, one of the most thoughtprovoking characters in movie can be studied in great length in relation to nature of State Executive and its functions. His loyalty to monarchy is unflinching. He commands all strength to justify royal family’s dependability on him for anything. His functions are of the nature of Executive in a State where Legislature makes policies to be acted upon by Executive functionaries and agents with judicial eyes hovering for reviews on correctness of implementations. The most famous question and its thrilling suspense for years to find an answer for “Why Kattappa killed Bhaahubali?” is worth thinking in a legalistic way. Ministerial implementation of power is interlinked with Executive functionaries and agents of State in policies and their operations. But this interlinking between policy and operation ought to be sound and reasonable and must reach people in society and end in intended benefits for which policies are made. It cannot be blind of this active link between State and society, in its thought and conduct. Kattappa’s is an example of what happens when Executive is not allowed to advice or give feedback to the Legislature. Kattappa was initially unaware of consequences of his actions. However, in the end, Kattappa uses his discriminative power and changes his stand of loyalty from mere blind allegiance to Queen to active intelligence to understand what is true, right, correct and good as per Dharma. In legal words, it is “reasonableness” and “a good that must be served to society” that Kattappa adheres to and, not the law-less acceptance of arbitrary and mala fide commands from Bhallala, Bijjaladeva and, Sivagami as well when she lost her peace of mind to discriminate who is right and wrong arising from mistaken facts though she could have been alert. One can study here “Wednesbury Unreasonableness” principle of administrative law. Kattappa’s past blind allegiance and his changed, new but Dharmic good-actions has a connection with what is explained in Wednesbury Unreasonableness principle – “so outrageous in its defiance of logic or accepted moral standards that no sensible person who had applied his mind to the question to be decided could have arrived at it”, as explained by Lord Diplock in one of English judgments. We study in law that “cessante ratione legis, cessat ipsa lex– when reason of law is at an end, law itself ends”. Or Kattappa’s practice of custom of following the promised-word can be contrasted with reasonableness under “consuetude ex certa causa rationabili usitata privat communem legem–a custom based on certain reasonable foundation abrogates common law.