Maybe we have come a long way from the position of ‘Show me the person, and I’ll show you the law.’
Maybe we are very clear that celebrities are no different from regular citizens. So, if they do the crime, they must do the time.
But maybe, just maybe, the judiciary that is acting according to such strong, potent impartiality, doesn’t quite believe it.
That is why there is a 150 page judgment (in a bid to be a ‘landmark case’ no doubt) when a much more concise sentence would do. If only evidence is weighed to administer punishment, then why should it matter if a guy is a celebrity? Salman Khan got famous acting. How does that mandate that he have stronger ethics than others? Why does his fame make him responsible for other people’s conscience? Why should his getting punished be an ‘example’ for other people?
Maybe the judiciary itself needs to think of whether it’s trying to overcompensate for its lapses. Maybe it needs to look at whether it’s going all out to punish those who get caught to make up for those who get away.
So it punishes a frightened 19 year-old (a common citizen) when she turns a hostile witness while the uncommon ones breathe easy.
It sentences a guy for breaking the law. And then it points out that a celebrity has not escaped the long hands of the law because the celebrity is no different from a regular citizen. The law is the same for all – a common man or a celebrity.
Yes, your Lordship, I’m trying to get past the fact that Salman Khan is a celebrity and your judgment is in fact, very very righteous.
And no, your Lordship, law is not blind. It definitely peeps.