let there be unbiased probe in Zinta-Ness spat
The kerfuffle caused following actor Preity Zinta's allegations that she was verbally abused and manhandled by industrialist Ness Wadia is understandable given the high profile personalities involved. However, away from the glare of television camera studios, it is imperative that law enforcement authorities take an unbiased approach and conduct a thorough investigation, so that the legal process that has been initiated can be taken to its logical end. For now, even as charges and counter-charges fly thick and fast between the two parties, the situation has become even more complicated with gangster Ravi Pujari reportedly warning the Wadias not to “mess with the lady”. Earlier this week, two employees of the Wadias are said to have received threatening calls, on the basis of which the group's chief, Mr Wadia's father, has been given police protection. Pujari's ties to the case or either of the involved parties are unclear, but they can impact the the course of the investigation. From the information available, it seems like the spat between Ms Zinta and Mr Wadia spiralled out of an altercation over front-row seats in the owner's box at Mumbai's Wankhede Stadium during the May 30 Indian Premier league match between Kings XI Punjab, the team they jointly own, and Chennai Super Kings. By the time Mr Wadia came to see the game with his family, Ms Zinta was already seated in the front row with her party and refused to vacate the seats. This reportedly led to a heated argument. Ms Zinta alleges that in full public view, she was insulted and roughed up by Mr Wadia, also her former boyfriend. On his part, Mr Wadia has denied these allegations.
Based on Ms Zinta's complaint, Mumbai Police has lodged a case against Mr Wadia under Section 354 (assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty), Section 504 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace), Section 506 (punishment for criminal intimidation) and Section 509 (word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman) of the Indian Penal Code. Initial media reports were quick to jump the gun and assume that the case involved grievous sexual assault, which was later clarified by Mr Zinta's lawyer as being untrue. By then, sections of the commentariat, salivating over the possibility of a high-profile celebrity scandal, had painted the Wadia scion as the villain.
On the flip side, Ms Zinta too has not been spared. The actor has been criticised for making much ado about nothing. There is an underlying insinuation that she is being irresponsible in sullying the reputation of a respected industry leader and just wants to grab public attention. The fact that she travelled abroad soon after lodging the complaint was twisted to claim that her case was frivolous — even though she has reportedly been in close touch with the authorities. This is patently unfair, not to mention that it signals a quiet acceptance of the fact that bad behaviour towards women, if kept within certain ‘limits’, is acceptable. If Ms Zinta felt aggrieved by Mr Wadia's behaviour, irrespective of whether it included molestation or sexual assault, she has every right to seek redressal in a court of law.