Human rights assignment

ANALYSIS OF THE
FILM FROM THE
LENS OF HUMAN
RIGHTS
MISHA BA 3 MLP
 DIRECTED BY MEGHNA GULZAR AND
WRITTEN BY VISHAL BHARDWAJ

The film is an investigative thriller based on the

real 2008 Aarushi Talwar and Hemraj murder
case.
Features star cast Irrfan Khan, Konkona Sen
Sharma, and Neeraj Kabi.
This movie presents multiple perspectives of the
same incident, exploring the subjective nature of
truth.
Critically examines flaws in the investigation
process, highlighting procedural lapses and
forensic mishandlings.
Explores the justice system’s vulnerabilities and
the influence of media trials on public opinion
and legal outcomes.
This movie serves as a thought provoking
commentary on societal structures, the quest for
truth, and the complexities of justice.
Talvar, inspired by the Aarushi Talwar and Hemraj case,
follows the investigation of a sensational double murder
in Noida. Fourteen year old Shruti Tandon is found dead
and the family’s servant, Khempal, is initially suspected
until his body is discovered the next day. The local
police were incompetent, prompting the CBI to take
over. Lead officer Ashwin Kumar’s probe suggests
outsider involvement, but due to internal politics and his
carelessness, he is replaced by a new team. This second
investigation flips the narrative, accusing the parents of
killing Shruti and Khempal in a fit of rage after allegedly
catching them together.
The film offers conflicting versions of events, exposing
flaws in India’s investigative process, media trials, and
justice system, while leaving us with more questions
than answers
The investigation itself was careless and unprofessional:

Officer Ashwin Kumar is seen eating food at a roadside stall

with case evidence casually placed on the table, showing casual
handling of crucial material.
Relatives were allowed into the crime scene before police arrival,
contaminating key evidence.
Bloody Handprints of a supposed killer on the terrace were never
reported to forensics about new evidence.
Shruti’s cremation was rushed, violating proper forensic
procedures.
A typographical error in the forensic report further weakened the
case.
Wrongful arrest and imprisonment. Tandons spent nearly four
years in prison based on circumstantial evidence, later being
acquitted due to lack of proof.
Their prolonged incarceration without substantial evidence
amounted to arbitrary detention.

These lapses not only denied the victims a proper investigation but
also compromised the fairness of the trial
Articles Violated-Art 21 Right to privacy
At a press conference, a police officer called
Shruti and her father "characterless,"
spreading unverified rumors.
The honor killing theory, suggested by an
outsider, was accepted without evidence
based entirely on moral judgment.
Shruti's personal life was sensationalized by
the media, violating her right to privacy and
dignity.
Khemraj's death was treated as less
important because he was a Nepali worker,
showing class and racial bias.
Articles Violated: Article 21 & 20(3) (Indian
Constitution); ICCPR Article 7.
Police slapped, abused, and intimidated domestic
workers to extract forced confessions.
Aggressive interrogations of the Tandons relied on
pressure rather than evidence.
CBI officer Ashwin Kumar objected to custodial
torture but was sidelined, showing its institutional
acceptance.
Narco tests were interfered with, compromising
fairness and turning them into tools for coerced
confessions.
Psychological pressure, intimidation, and prolonged
questioning without adequate legal counsel
constituted degrading treatment.
Articles Violated: ICCPR Article 14(2) – “Everyone charged with a
criminal offence shall have the right to be presumed innocent until
proved guilty according to law.”
Media Trial: From the outset, Shruti’s parents were portrayed as guilty in
the press. Newspapers and TV channels sensationalised unverified
details about their lives, creating widespread public bias before trial.
Police Briefings: At an official press conference, a police officer labelled
shruti and her father “characterless,” and the honour killing theory was
promoted without proof, fuelling prejudgment.
Investigative Bias: The first CBI team built its case on speculation
rather than evidence, while later teams offered contradictory theories.
Both approaches presumed guilt rather than ensuring impartiality.
Public and Judicial Perception: The Tandon’s were arrested and jailed
despite weak evidence. They endured humiliation, stigma, and social
ostracism, effectively being punished before conviction.
The parents were publicly portrayed as murderers before trial.
They were attacked, humiliated, and eventually incarcerated despite
inconclusive evidence, violating their right to be treated as innocent
until proven guilty.
Articles Violated: Article 14, Indian Constitution; ICCPR
Article 26.
Class Bias in Investigation: Khempal’s murder, though
equally important, was treated as secondary to Aarushi’s.
His death was downplayed because he was a domestic
worker.
Nationality Prejudice: Being Nepali, Khempal’s identity
made authorities treat his case with less seriousness,
reflecting discrimination against migrant workers.
Unequal Media Portrayal: Aarushi’s personal life was
sensationalised with rumours and character attacks,
while Khempal’s death was ignored, reducing him to a
side note.
Disparate Access to Justice: The Talwars were vilified
without conclusive evidence, while Khempal’s family
received little recognition or justice. Both victims and
their families faced injustice, but in unequal and
discriminatory ways.
Right to Effective Remedy (Article 2, ICCPR)
– Lack of proper appeal process
The case shifted from local police to two
CBI teams with contradictory findings,
causing years of delay.
One CBI team suggested an outsider
theory, while the next blamed the parents,
weakening their defense.
The Tandons remained incarcerated as their
appeals dragged on for years.
Harassment during delay – Media vilification
and social stigma continued while justice
was delayed, worsening their suffering.
Articles Violated: Article 20(3) (Right against
self-incrimination); Article 22(1) (Right to
consult a legal practitioner); ICCPR Article 14(3)
(b) (Right to adequate defense).
Aarushi’s father was questioned by
investigators without access to a lawyer,
violating his right to legal defence.
Shruti’s mother was kept outside the
interrogation room, not informed about her
husband’s condition or rights.
Officials interfered during the narco-analysis
through phone calls, making the process biased
and unreliable.
The Tandon’s were coerced into statements
under stressful conditions, undermining the
right against self-incrimination.
 RIGHT TO LIFE RIGHT TO PRIVACY AND DIGNITY

INDIAN CONSTITUTION:
INDIAN CONSTITUTION:
ARTICLE 21 – RIGHT TO PRIVACY
ARTICLE 21 – PROTECTION OF
(RECOGNIZED UNDER PERSONAL
LIFE AND PERSONAL LIBERTY
LIBERTY)
ICCPR: ARTICLE 6 – RIGHT TO
ICCPR: ARTICLE 17 – PROTECTION
LIFE
AGAINST ARBITRARY INTERFERENCE
UDHR: ARTICLE 3 – RIGHT TO LIFE,
WITH PRIVACY, FAMILY, REPUTATION
LIBERTY, AND SECURITY OF
UDHR: ARTICLE 12 – RIGHT TO PRIVACY,
PERSON
HONOUR, AND REPUTATION

RIGHT TO A FAIR PROTECTION AGAINST

INVESTIGATION / HEARING TORTURE AND FORCED
CONFESSIONS
INDIAN CONSTITUTION:
INDIAN CONSTITUTION: ARTICLE 20(3) – PROTECTION AGAINST SELF-
ARTICLE 21 – DUE PROCESS OF LAW. INCRIMINATION.
ARTICLE 39A – EQUAL JUSTICE AND ARTICLE 21 – PROTECTION OF LIFE AND LIBERTY
FREE LEGAL AID. (EXPANDED TO INCLUDE FREEDOM FROM TORTURE).
ICCPR: ARTICLE 7 – NO TORTURE, CRUEL, INHUMAN OR
ICCPR: ARTICLE 14(1) – RIGHT TO A FAIR DEGRADING TREATMENT.
AND PUBLIC HEARING. UN CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE (UNCAT):
UDHR: ARTICLE 10 – RIGHT TO FAIR ARTICLES 2 & 4 – BAN ON TORTURE. NEXT
TRIAL. UDHR: ARTICLE 5 – NO ONE SHALL BE SUBJECTED TO
TORTURE OR CRUEL TREATMENT.
PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE RIGHT TO EQUALITY BEFORE LAW

INDIAN CONSTITUTION: (NOT EXPLICIT, INDIAN CONSTITUTION:

BUT DERIVED FROM ARTICLE 21 & ARTICLE 14 – EQUALITY BEFORE LAW,
CRIMINAL JURISPRUDENCE) EQUAL PROTECTION OF LAWS.
ICCPR: ARTICLE 14(2) – EVERYONE IS ICCPR: ARTICLE 26 – EQUALITY BEFORE
PRESUMED INNOCENT UNTIL PROVED THE LAW, PROHIBITION OF
GUILTY. DISCRIMINATION.
UDHR: ARTICLE 11(1) – PRESUMPTION UDHR: ARTICLE 7 – EQUALITY BEFORE
OF INNOCENCE UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. LAW WITHOUT DISCRIMINATION.

RIGHT TO A SPEEDY TRIAL DENIAL OF LEGAL RIGHTS

AND EFFECTIVE REMEDY AND DUE PROCESS

INDIAN CONSTITUTION: INDIAN CONSTITUTION:

ARTICLE 21 – SPEEDY TRIAL AS PART OF RIGHT TO LIFE ARTICLE 20(3) – PROTECTION AGAINST SELF-
(JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION). INCRIMINATION.
ICCPR: ARTICLE 22(1) – RIGHT TO CONSULT AND BE DEFENDED
ARTICLE 14(3)(C) – RIGHT TO BE TRIED WITHOUT BY A LEGAL PRACTITIONER.
UNDUE DELAY. ICCPR: ARTICLE 14(3)(B) – RIGHT TO ADEQUATE TIME
ARTICLE 2(3) – RIGHT TO AN EFFECTIVE REMEDY. AND FACILITIES TO PREPARE DEFENCE, AND TO
UDHR: ARTICLE 8 – RIGHT TO AN EFFECTIVE REMEDY BY COMMUNICATE WITH COUNSEL.
COMPETENT TRIBUNALS. UDHR: Article 11(1) – Right to fair trial and necessary
NEXT
guarantees for defence.
Talvar is not just a crime drama —
it’s a commentary on institutional
failure

Highlights urgent need for police

reform, media accountability,
and judicial diligence

Human rights violations can

happen in the name of justice
Thank you