Jolly LLB 3 Movie Review: Akshay Kumar and Arshad Warsi Reunite in a Timely Yet Uneven Courtroom Battle Against Corporate Power

Jolly LLB 3 Movie Review: A Timely but Uneven Courtroom Satire With Mixed Impact
Rating: 2.5/5
By Kartik Bhardwaj | Published: September 19, 2025 – 5:06 PM

The Jolly LLB series, since its debut in 2013, has built a niche for itself—combining courtroom drama with satire, where an underdog lawyer takes on the powerful. It’s always been a story of the common man challenging systemic injustice, wrapped in humor and irony. From Arshad Warsi’s portrayal of a scrappy Meerut lawyer taking on a privileged elite in the first film, to Akshay Kumar stepping into the franchise with Jolly LLB 2 (2017), the series has consistently tried to balance entertainment with social critique.

Now, in Jolly LLB 3, both Arshad and Akshay come together—merging grassroots charm with star power—to tackle another pressing issue. However, while the film aims to deliver an important message, its execution feels inconsistent.

Directed & Written by: Subhash Kapoor
Cast: Akshay Kumar, Arshad Warsi, Saurabh Shukla, Amrita Rao, Huma Qureshi

The film finds Jagdish Tyagi (Arshad Warsi) and Jagdishwar Mishra (Akshay Kumar) both practicing law at the same Delhi court. Sharing the same nickname—“Jolly”—causes confusion and competition, often leading to comedic clashes between the two. Their rivalry takes a turn when a widow, Janki Solanki (Seema Biswas), approaches them for help. Her farmland is under threat from a powerful real estate corporation led by the cunning Haribhai Khaitan (played with flair by Gajraj Rao). Initially, both lawyers dismiss her case, but the moral compass—nudged by their wives (Amrita Rao and Huma Qureshi)—soon sets them on a shared mission for justice.

While this third installment attempts to be the most politically charged in the series, tackling topics like land acquisition, corporate greed, and the farmers’ protests, it struggles with tonal balance. The screenplay touches on real-world references—mentions of farmers marching to Delhi, a certain fugitive “VM” hiding abroad, and buzzwords like “vikas” and “superpower”—suggesting an intent to spark conversation. The narrative loosely draws inspiration from the 2011 farmer protests in Uttar Pradesh, though the setting has been inexplicably relocated to Rajasthan.

Despite its relevant themes, the film stumbles in execution. The satire feels diluted, with serious moments and comedic scenes operating in isolation rather than feeding into each other. Instead of blending wit with critique, the story alternates between slapstick and straight-faced sermonizing. The comic timing between Akshay and Arshad is enjoyable, and Judge Saurabh Shukla’s subplot about finding love and improving his health adds a lighthearted charm. But the movie misses the sharp edge that made the earlier films work as both entertainment and commentary.

There’s also a subtle meta-layer—Akshay’s Jolly consistently outshining Arshad’s Tyagi, not just in court but within the film’s structure itself. Despite the premise of equal footing, Arshad seems side-lined. Akshay gets more screen time, better lines, and even a melodramatic ‘hero moment’ where he cries over police brutality—an all-too-familiar trope in his patriotic filmography.

On the brighter side, Gajraj Rao delivers a standout performance. His portrayal of a self-made industrialist who justifies his actions under the guise of national interest is both nuanced and chilling. His introductory speech—lamenting how entrepreneurs are rarely seen as heroes in stories—is biting social commentary. But when he refuses to give up his own property for a government project, his hypocrisy is laid bare. The film cleverly points out how sacrifices are always expected from the poor, not the privileged.

In summary, Jolly LLB 3 has its moments and relevant themes, but it falters in delivering a cohesive satire. While Akshay and Arshad’s chemistry provides comic relief, the film never fully commits to the sharp, incisive tone it seems to aim for. It’s a courtroom drama that raises valid questions, but doesn’t always know how to argue its case.