Whatever may be merit or demerit of Salman’s case, it sends a strong message to those who drink and drive. Another message is for the society at large: drunken driving could have serious consequences for other people. Yet another message is that everybody is equal before law, howsoever high and mighty one may be. Whether it is a shining superstar in a limousine or a poor man sleeping on a dimly lit pavement, the courts in India treat both alike. This is the positive outcome of the Mumbai Sessions Court judgment convicting Salman for running over one Nurullah Mehboob Sharif under the influence of alcohol in 2002. The Bombay High Court might have given him bail for now and the case is again coming up for hearing, but the issues involved remain the same.

Fairness of the law is praiseworthy but not its tardiness. Why should it take 13 years to judge, who was driving a case and whether or not, he was under the influence of liquor? Thousands of criminal cases have been pending in courts. In 2013, there were 9.71 million criminal cases pending before judiciary, and the completion rate for cases was only 13.19 per cent. An understaffed judiciary creaks under the weight of cases, and tardy investigation processes have compounded the problem. Conviction of Salman after 13 years of delay pits this reality in the limelight.

Salman’s is the second case of a Bollywood star being convicted in recent years. In the case of Sanjay Dutt, who had been convicted of harbouring illegal arms, the judicial pronouncement also came about 13 years after he had been charged with the offence. But while in case of Sanjay Dutt, the extent of culpability had been difficult to establish because nowhere had it been alleged that Dutt had acted with criminal intent or tried to hurt or maim anyone, Salman’s wrongdoing was clear.

Salman is no ordinary film star. A celebrity who not only mentors young actors but also actively aids social service; he is hugely popular among both producers and consumers of Bollywood films. Not surprisingly, his conviction in the hit-and-run-case resulted not in any dent in his image or popularity, but in a huge wave of sympathy from fellow Bollywood stars and his film fans. The Mumbai Sessions Court, therefore, did well not to be swayed by the groundswell of support for the megastar while handing down the judgment in 2002 case.

Sessions Court judge D W Deshpande’s verdict also nailed attempts by Salman’s lawyers to pin blame on the actor’s driver, the only defense witness who was suddenly brought up at the last stage of the 13-year-long trail. The driver testified that it was he who drove the vehicle that the prosecution claimed Salman drove in a drunken state. But judge Deshpande was not convinced, and told Salman as much on the day of judgment. Though Indian courts have been relatively less stringent in pursuing perjury cases, it is important that judiciary pursue perjury case against the driver to expose why he was willing to take the blame.

Film personalities always have a measure of public support and Khan is no exception. No one grudges the esteem in which they are held in the society. However, the fact that Salman is involved in charitable work and had offered compensation to the victims cannot be allowed to influence the course of law, and it did not. Of course, the law makes exceptions in certain situations but in Salman’s case. there is no legal provision for that.

Justice may have been done in Salman’s case but it has taken 13 years during which next of kin of the victim and those injured must have suffered tremendously. From the verdict, it now appears that it was a fairly straightforward case. If it was so simple a case, it should have been concluded much earlier. The case again continues in Bombay High Court and now it seems that Salman’s family and friends will fight to the last. (IPA Service)