The film examines the Indian legal system through the Mumbai Sessions Court trial of an aging protest singer, Narayan Kamble (Vira Sathidar), who is accused of encouraging a manhole worker to commit suicide through one of his folk songs.

It premiered in India at the International competition section of the 2014 Mumbai Film Festival and was released theatrically on 17 April 2015.

In the next hearing of the case, the investigating officer links Kamble with an incarcerated man, Ashwin Bhagat, through a letter, accusing them of planning illegal activity in the city.

Pawar's widow confesses in court that her husband used to clean the manholes without any safety equipment and had lost one eye from exposure to poisonous sewer gases.

Vora reads the autopsy report which indicates Pawar died as a result of respiratory failure due to inhalation of hydrogen sulphide, with no sign of self-harm.

Kamble is then subsequently arrested on charges of conducting seditious camps under the cover of folk-artist workshops, and is remanded to police custody.

[4] Tamhane wanted to explore the "judicial nightmare" in an Indian setting after coming across the case of Jiten Marandi, a cultural activist from Jharkhand.

Marandi was arrested as a suspect in the Chilkari massacre, which occurred on 26 October 2007, where nineteen people were killed by Naxalites at a public function.

[5] The action against activist singers of the cultural organisation, Kabir Kala Manch on allegations of links with the left wing also inspired the film's narrative.

I was amused by this setting, and decided to probe further.Tamhane found the incidents that occur in a lower court to be "bizarre" and saw the potential for drama and humour.

[8] Another incident which prompted Tamhane to make the film was when a friend had gone to a police station for document submission and had to wait two hours for a printout because the constable did not know how to connect the cable of the printer.

[11] Tamhane saw Anand Patwardhan's documentary Jai Bhim Comrade (2011), when he was about to finish writing the script and cited it as an "invaluable resource" for the reference of the film.

[citation needed] Tamhane had written all the scenes outside the courtroom but lacked the main case until he read about the condition of manhole workers in a Tehelka book, which he incorporated into the script.

[11] He also read books of Fali Sam Nariman, V. R. Krishna Iyer and watched Krzysztof Kieślowski's 1966 short film The Office for reference.

Tamhane and casting director Sachit Puranik would sneak into the Bombay High Court and stay there for almost three hours a day.

Tamhane had previously worked with the film's production designers, Pooja Talreja and Somnath Pal, on his play Grey Elephants in Denmark.

Tamhane and his crew members went to banks, railway offices, schools, tea sellers, snack vendors, auto and taxi drivers, and asked people if they would like to act in the film.

[19] A critic from The New Republic called the film a welcome addition to critiques of the judiciary and favorably compared it to the novels Bleak House (1853) and The Trial (1925).

"[42] Meenakshi Shedde reviewing for Mid-Day, wrote: "Apart from highlighting our antiquated laws, Tamhane's strength lies in his even-handedness: he humanises and empathises with his protagonists, even as he lampoons them.

[44] Rajeev Masand praised the "Kafkaesque absurdity", the dark humour and realism of the film: "Compelling and all-too relevant, Court punches you hard in the gut.

"[46] Suhani Singh of India Today called it the "finest film of 2015 so far", further writing: "Assuredly directed and intelligently written by debutant Chaitanya Tamhane, Court is a riveting watch.

[48] Renuka Vyavahare of The Times of India, mentioned in her review: "[Court ] breaks the stereotypes in the most understated manner to give you the biting reality of our country's flawed judicial system".

"[50] A review carried by Suparna Sharma of Deccan Chronicle wrote: "Court doesn't caricature our reality, nor does it harangue us with prescriptive chalk talk.

"[53] Baradwaj Rangan felt that the "western eye" was evident in the filmmaking, with its wide shots: "In the absence of camera movement, we rely on other things to enliven the frames – people crossing roads and walking past doors, traffic on streets, the fluttering of paper flags above a stage, a boy practicing on Roman Rings.

The website's consensus reads: "Court takes a penetrating, timely look at issues facing Indian society while serving as an excellent calling card for debuting writer-director Chaitanya Tamhane.

"[14] Neil Young of The Hollywood Reporter stated that the film was a "compellingly clear-eyed indictment of modern-day India's institutional dysfunction".

[56] Reviewing for Le Monde, Jacques Mandelbaum called it "a major movie on the worrying state of freedom of speech in the Indian democracy" and praised the "intelligence and sensitivity" of Tamhane.

[57] In his positive review of the film, Mike McCahill of The Guardian complimented Tamhane: "Here's a film-maker training a sharp, prosecutorial eye on those harsh homefront realities Bollywood has traditionally permitted audiences to escape.

"[58] Stephen Holden, writing for The New York Times, gave a positive review to the film and wrote: "The wheels of justice grind slowly and mercilessly in Court, Chaitanya Tamhane's quiet, devastating critique of the antiquated Indian legal system.

[13] Ken Guidry of IndieWire mentioned in his review that Court "borders on brilliance" at times, adding: "Often, it's not about what's happening in the scene, but the implications behind it.