The law may be the same for everybody, but privileges are not the same for all. This may sound rude but it is true. Equality before the law is as non-existent as the Saraswati River that we have all heard of but none has seen
Real life anecdotes, more than the highfalutin mumbo-jumbo of the commentariat, help us understand contemporary events and incidents. So let me begin with an anecdote that has stuck to my mind. While parking my car in Noida one day, I saw the parking lot attendant, a teenaged boy, pleading with a couple who wouldn’t pay the Rs10 fee. I intervened and requested the couple to pay the parking fee or else it would be docked from the attendant's meagre salary.
Both the man and woman were aghast that someone should have chosen to intercede on behalf of the parking lot attendant. That’s what I presumed till the real reason dawned on me. The man curtly said he was an officer at Noida Authority and hence did not need to pay parking fees. I tried to reason with him: He was not on official work, that the exemption (if true) did not apply beyond working hours, and, the law was the same for everybody. I thought that would stump and shame him.
I had clearly thought wrong. Her lips curled in contempt, the woman scornfully retorted: “The law may be the same for everybody, but privileges are not the same for all.” Having said that, she and the man got into their car and drove off. At a loss for words, I could only shake my head in silent fury. I gave a tenner to the attendant so that he wouldn’t have to pay from his pocket and left the parking lot.
I have been often reminded of that rude but true assertion: The law is the same for everybody, but some are more privileged than others. So what good is the law that can’t be enforced on everybodyIJ Or, what good is this imagined equality if the law is enforced differently for different peopleIJ These and related questions came to mind this past week as the media-hyped drama over Bollywood actor Salman Khan’s sentencing in a hit-and-run, drunken driving case unfolded.
If there were any fears that millions of fans of Salman Khan would have a miserable weekend agonising over their idol’s hardship in jail, those were put to rest by an obliging Mumbai High Court. The trial court’s verdict, sentencing Salman Khan to five years’ imprisonment after holding him guilty of running over pavement dwellers and killing one of them, was stayed by the High Court till it disposes of his appeal.
It took 13 years for the trial court to pronounce its verdict. It is anybody’s guess as to how long it will take for the appeals process to be over. Years and more pass by as our creaky criminal justice system dawdles over whether to punish or not to punish those who are in breach of the law of the land. By the time justice is pretended to be done, or perceived to be done, the crime committed has been all but forgotten, airbrushed from the collective memory of the masses.
This is not the first time that we are witnessing what frankly amounts to preferential treatment by the courts of law. For long it has been an established practice in this wondrous land of ours. The law is cited not to punish and deter criminals, at least not often enough, but to provide an alibi for individuals like Salman Khan. It can then be said that ‘due process of law’ was followed without cutting corners.
I am reminded of the horrific ‘BMW case’ that shook the conscience of Delhi’s residents who are otherwise not known to be bothered about right and wrong, ethical and unethical, moral and immoral. Few would remember the cold January night in 1999 when a drunk Sanjeev Nanda ploughed through a police check post, killing six persons, among them three Delhi Police men in uniform.
Nor will many recall that in a mockery of justice, all that the son of powerful businessman Suresh Nanda was given by way of punishment was two years’ imprisonment. It may have been coincidental that the sentence equalled the time the culprit had already spent in jail. But not everybody was convinced that the highest court of the land had been fair in meting out punishment. Yes, there was a fine to be paid but that was loose change for the culprit’s super rich daddy.
That is how the criminal justice system works. Show me the face and I shall tell you the rule is really not a cliche. This has been proved once again by the ease with which Salman Khan has avoided time in the slammer. It would be worthwhile to check how many men and women held guilty of an assortment of crimes the day Salman Khan was pronounced guilty have been as dextrous as him in securing judicial relief.
India today resembles George Orwell’s scathing satire Animal Farm. In Orwell’s mythical farm, all animals were equal but some were more equal than others. So it is with our country. The Constitution may loftily declare all citizens of the Sovereign Socialist Secular Democratic Republic of India as equal, in real life that equality is as non-existent as the Saraswati River that we have all heard of but none has seen (though it did exist once upon a time).
This is really not about Salman Khan. It is about the social pecking order that determines extraordinary rights and privileges. Sanjay Dutt got off lightly with a minor prison term after being held guilty for his role in the hideous Mumbai bombings of 1993. He did not deny the charges. He merely pleaded he was young and hence did not realise the gravity of his deed. Younger men from the wrong side of the tracks have paid heavily for a similar crime. And even among the privileged class, few can hope for repeated and extended paroles.
Examples abound. Bihar’s former Chief Minister lalu Prasad is a free man after being held guilty in the fodder scam. True, he is disqualified from holding public office but that has not impacted on his politics or his fortunes. What, then, was the punishment he had to sufferIJ
The chattering classes often express dismay over the contempt with which the masses treat the law of the land, its enforcers and its interpreters. There really is no cause for dismay. The law and its keepers have long ceased to be fair and even-handed. Or else lt Col Prasad Shrikant Purohit and Sadhvi Pragya would still not be in jail while the Supreme Court interrupts hearings to give bail to powerful and connected individuals like Teesta Setalvad. We have also seen the Supreme Court set free Syed Mohammed Kazmi, prime accused in the terror attack on an Israeli Embassy car in Delhi, primly declaring bail is a right. It meant bail is a privilege!
(The writer is a current affairs analyst based in NCR)