Salman Khan's out on bail:
He has hired prominent lawyer Harish Salve...
54 year old Harish Salve, former Solicitor General of India, is, arguably, today's most expensive lawyer in India. He has represented high-profile cases like Mulayam Singh Yadav, Prakash Singh Badal and Lalit Modi but his reputation (and legal fees!) started sky-rocketing after he won Mukesh Ambani's gas dispute against brother Anil who was represented by Ram Jethmalani. His latest ongoing case is representing Ratan Tata who has gone to the Supreme Court claiming that his privacy has been violated in the Nira Radia tapes scandal.
Hiring Harish Salve as a lawyer does not come cheap. He charges a massive fee of Rs 30 lakhs per day. His fees alone is supposed to have cost Mukesh Ambani a whopping Rs 15 crore. Even this pales into insignificance when you compare it with the Rs 60 crore which he is supposed to have collected in the Forest Case of TN Godavarman Thirumulpad. In addition, he has to be provided overnight five-star suites and first class air-tickets. A dinner for him and his team at a five star hotel can cost over Rs 2 lakh. Clients have been known to present him a hot Vertu phone or a Jaeger-LeCoutre watch to keep him in good mood. Further, Salve will only accept the first brief. In other words, he will never be the second counsel to anyone else in any case. Salve drives a Bentley and has a holiday home in Goa. Fashion conscious Salve visits London frequently to shop for his clothes. That is, when his clients do not get them for him as in the case of Mukesh Ambani who is supposed to have bought an entire wardrobe of clothes for him when fighting against his brother!
This content was originally posted by: .Verity.
😆 on the the bold you are waiting to see him suffer under the law himself...
This content was originally posted by: .Verity.
But saying all these things I still feel when you kill someone by accident drunk or not that person's life you've taken has to have some value, and I keep asking this to everyone on here but no-one has tried to answer it, but I will say it again, I feel if the homeless guy had no-one to turn to, no friends or family to keep him during his bad times for him to turn his life around, no job, he had no dependents to provide for, what value did he have to society?The law says Salman should be prosecuted but if we think of the victim what was he to society? What was his contribution presently or his future prospects?
The system operates under the principle "equality before the law". It just means all people are subject to the same laws of justice regardless of their standing in the society.
As for value, it is relative (value of one instrument or entity is expressed in terms of value of another) and subjective (what is valuable to me is not valuable to you) The expression "value to society" assumes that society is a living, breathing organism that needs to march ahead and flourish at all costs. There is no stated purpose like that anywhere, we humans just assumed that it so. In actuality, it doesn't matter whether society A collapses and society B flourishes or if society B collapses and society A flourishes or if all societies collapse and there is total annihilation or if all societies flourish and there is joy everywhere. In that sense, all humans have the same value. Zero. No one human is more "valuable" than the other. To assume otherwise would mean, all that has happened in the human history and all that is happening now means something at the "end of it". It doesn't mean anything. But if you insist it does, then it begs the question " to who?".
So, to answer your question, we are all as "worthless" as the person who died. Conversely, the person who died has the same "worth" as any of us.
This content was originally posted by: .Verity.
I am equally skeptical, I think this reformation and all the being human, good deeds and charity, is perhaps a calculated cause of action to help him in this case, he knew it would come this day, so he cleaned up his act and worked hard to go out of his way to help others so they could all testify to his good character. So the witness ex constable Ravindra Patil was probably bribed not to appear in court and was imprisoned for not testifying to collaborate his earlier statement, the bribe also didn't last as he died a beggar, why he didn't go back to Salman for more money?Its a shame that after 13 years of work, its all unravelled in 2 days for the justice sy estem. I feel the courts also were helping him the lower court taking so long to give him time to clean up his act and do his charity, we can't put it down to the fact they have too many cases, it seems like they wanted to help him clean up his act and reform without going to prison again.Its a fact that there is a huge backlog of cases in the courts. What is lamentable is that the courts continue their practice of regular summer and winter vacations. As things stand it would be more appropriate to allow only 50% of the staff to go on vacation and that too in turns so that the proceedings dont get totally paralysed during these periods.But saying all these things I still feel when you kill someone by accident drunk or not that person's life you've taken has to have some value, and I keep asking this to everyone on here but no-one has tried to answer it, but I will say it again, I feel if the homeless guy had no-one to turn to, no friends or family to keep him during his bad times for him to turn his life around, no job, he had no dependents to provide for, what value did he have to society?The law is supposed to work on the principle of equality. The punishment is meant to be in accordance with the crime committed. I am sure the actor did not deliberately choose to run over the victim whose value to society is being questioned. It could have been anyone who happened to be at that place at that time of the accident. While one can allege contributory negligence on part of the victims who slept on the pavements as that was no place to sleep they conveniently ignore that the victims may have had little choice whereas the actor had had the choice of consuming alcohol or not, driving the car in that state or not, opting to offer help to the victims after the accident or not. He made his choice.So did the constable Ravindra Patil who despite immense pressure and at the cost of his own well being refused to withdraw or alter his statements. A news item about R Patil should throw more light on his fate- http://www.tehelka.com/how-salman-khan-ruined-101-bodyguard-ravindra-patil/There were others who showed exemplary commitment to their duty like Sub Inspector Dinesh M Patkar and his team of Bandra Police Station in Mumbai. The case would have collapsed much earlier if his team hadnt diligently traced the crucial missing documents (56 of the 63). If we had more of such people in our country the state of justice would be very different from what it is .As for value, whom do we value more? Each of these made his own choice in life. None of these men are making huge bucks like the actor or his lawyer nor are they seen as real life heroes whereas the actor is a celebrity, a reel-hero with a huge fan following. Just goes to show the hollowness of the entire value system. . If reel life heroes tower over the real life it is because of what the majority values. So in a way everything is fair and square as the society gets what it aspires for. A drunk remorseless celebrity actor and his paid coterie of lawyers with their network win over the poor victims as well as a handful of honest , diligent , people who still have faith in the law and in doing their duty. Not surprisingly, the later could be an endangered species though.The law says Salman should be prosecuted but if we think of the victim what was he to society? What was his contribution presently or his future prospects?For all we know the victims only contribution could be as a test for our judiciary system. Time will reveal whether it fails or sails.. In monetary terms the actor will be valued more as a number of producers have put in their money on his movies which is expected to provide entertainment to his numerous fans. Its a circus alright!All the same I would say that the actor hasnt been known to be a serial offender and all said and done it was an accident. I am all for an opportunity for reform but that ought to be extended to everyone and not just to a select few. The thirty thousand rupees bond is peanuts and instead it would have been better to make him pay for rehabilitating the survivors. It makes more practical sense to settle some cases out of the court. Only the lawyers seem to be benefitting out of these cases.
This content was originally posted by: LovelyPlanetwell his intention was not to kill anyone, accidents happen all the time. He has been remorseful since the accident and has helped 1000s of people with his own money.
There are people vouching for his goodness.
Moreover there are 100s of politicians who are responsible for killings, loot all nations money and never seem regretful at all. Compared to them he is saint, so putting him in the jail is not going to be fair.
This content was originally posted by: indianprincess
I'm sorry i disagree here, agreed that he ran over the victims by mistake in drunken or whatever state he was in, one can pardon him for this had he sincerely taken the victims to the nearest hospital and treated them instead of running away like a coward from the accident scene.. this running part is what turns his mistake into a crime.all this being human and charity is a farce created by his PR to cover up for his crime and sadly it has worked too, this incident happened in 2002 and he started with the being human campaign in 2007 .. what was he doing for 5 years? he didn't try to reach out to the victims familis in these 5 yrs, if you indeed want to help ppl, change their lives then why not first start with the families you have ruined coz of your careless driving?ok so just coz the politicians and other criminals are not punished so even bhai has the right to remain free and go unpunished? what kind of logic is this.i can for once forgive him fr the hit thing ...but run? nope never.
This content was originally posted by: HippoSucks
I agree, if an accident occurs, it is your responsibility to help them out (take them to the hospital etc).
But if the accident occurred due to a misjudgement due to alcohol, he probably made the inappropriate decision of running away due to alcohol as well.
You can't say that he was drunk and therefore is guilty, and that he ran away. If he was drunk, then his judgement was weakened.
comment:
p_commentcount