Two hit-and-run incidents in Maharashtra have highlighted a longstanding issue: a poor man's life being seen as dispensable, a driver made a scapegoat, and affluent individuals exploiting loopholes to evade consequences — something that has been happening for years.

One of these incidents involves the infamous Porsche hit-and-run case from Pune, where 17-year-old Vedant Agarwal fatally struck two people on a motorbike in the early hours of May 19. Agarwal, driving his brand-new Porsche—a birthday gift from his grandfather — was under the influence of alcohol and lacked a valid licence.

The second incident from Mumbai mirrors the first in disturbing ways.

A drunk Mihir Shah, the son of Shiv Sena leader Rajesh Shah from the Eknath Shinde faction, was involved in a hit-and-run where a woman was killed and a man injured on July 7. Shah attempted to evade arrest by shaving his head and facial hair and allegedly switched seats with his driver, Rajrishi Rajendrasingh Bidawat, after the crash. Shockingly, the deceased woman was not only dragged under the car but was also allegedly run over twice as they fled.

In both instances, there are allegations that the families of the accused obstructed and manipulated the investigation. Efforts were made to shift blame onto family drivers, exposing a troubling pattern of privilege, entitlement, and disregard for human life. Further, power and political influence appear to have been leveraged to shield them from accountability.

The Salman Khan hit-and-run case

These incidents almost immediately evoke memories of the infamous Salman Khan hit-and-run case. “The Salman Khan incident set a precedent that if you are rich and powerful, you can get away with anything,” says Sociology Professor at the Indian Institute of Technology, Guwahati, Rituparna Patgiri. She reveals a troubling pattern: “Historically, how we treat hit-and-run cases shows utter disregard for the lives of the poor."

This selective outrage outrage becomes evident when one compares the media frenzy over the deaths of privileged individuals to the deaths of thousands of farmers who take their own life each year. Their tragedies barely register on the national radar.

This comparison also extends to the lives of drivers or homeless pedestrians, who are considered more expendable compared to a celebrity like Salman Khan or a young boy whose family can afford a Porsche. This selective empathy reveals a disturbing societal bias that values the wealthy far more than those on the margins.

“The powerless driver being the scapegoat is another example of how the lives of the poor are undervalued in this society,” says Prof Patgiri. She further points out that drivers in such cases are often compensated with amounts they could never have imagined earning in their lifetime. “The two accused spent thousands in just one night at the bar. Imagine the endless amount of money they can spend to compensate a driver and what that amount could mean to him. This is possible only because of the extreme inequality in wealth in our society,” she explains.

In the Pune incident, reports indicate that Vedant Agarwal's grandfather was arrested for wrongfully confining the driver and forcing him to take the blame. Similarly, Shah allegedly misled the investigation by switching seats with his driver, reportedly at his father's suggestion.

Drawing a parallel with the ongoing wedding of Anant Ambani and Radhika Merchant, Prof Patgiri elaborates on the wealth inequality and the privileges of the rich. “It is okay for public road blockades if it is a wealthy wedding, but not for protests,” she exclaims.

Echoing these sentiments, Supreme Court advocate Aditya Kashyap highlights the glaring discrepancies between constitutional guarantees and practical realities. He states, “In theory, under the Constitution of India, Article 14 guarantees that every person is equal before the law. However, what we see in practice is often starkly opposite.”

He attributes this disparity to the numerous loopholes and deficiencies within the legal and justice delivery system, involving multiple stakeholders from investigation (police/forensics) to prosecution (advocates), judiciary, media, and society at large.

The treatment of affluent youth within the legal system starkly highlights these disparities. Jurisdictional differences, the nature of the offense, and public perception heavily influence outcomes. The misuse of power and financial resources to manipulate investigations and witnesses is a persistent issue.

“Affluent individuals typically have access to better legal representation before the courts. Better quality of defence counsel will ensure better petitions, stronger defences and arguments, and help to navigate the legal system efficiently,” explains Kashyap.

Wealthy individuals can also easily afford bail, avoiding pretrial detention — a luxury rarely available to the poor. Kashyap further emphasises, “High-profile cases involving affluent youth often receive significant media attention or what we call a media trial. Public outrage or sympathy may or may not influence outcomes. There can be a perception that affluent youth are less likely to re-offend or that they have made a ‘mistake’ rather than displaying a pattern of criminal behaviour."

This perception leads to disparities in sentencing, where affluent youth receive more lenient sentences due to perceived potential for rehabilitation, lack of criminal history, or ability to provide restitution.

These issues are strikingly similar to the Jessica Lal murder case. The accused, Manu Sharma, the son of a powerful politician, was initially acquitted due to lack of evidence and witnesses turning hostile.

Public outrage and media pressure eventually led to a retrial and Sharma’s conviction. This illustrates how public and media influence can impact legal outcomes, but also highlights the initial failures of the justice system.

However, it has been almost twenty years since the Jessica Lal case was heard, and it begs the question: Has nothing changed since?

What has changed?

Advocate Kashyap insists that there have been some positive changes. He notes that it would be inaccurate to claim that things haven't changed at all. He says, “From the incorporation of mandatory forensic evidence collection to the usage of technology to make the process efficient and reducing bias, the efforts are ongoing to make the justice delivery system equitable.”

However, Kashyap also points out the persistent issues within the system.

Despite these advancements, the misuse of legal provisions, law enforcement, and legal institutions by the affluent, political class, and privileged individuals continues.

“We have also seen celebrities from all walks of life who have been accused of an offence and have been made to face trial in a court of law, and many a time, even being convicted and serving their sentences. But still, the misuse of legal provisions, law enforcement and legal institutions is continuing at the hands of the affluent, the political class, and the privileged,” he says, adding, “Things have improved, but not as much as desired.”

So, what reforms could help achieve fairer outcomes in such cases?

Advocate Aditya Kashyap says that tackling corruption within stakeholder institutions is crucial to ensuring fair trials and delivering true justice. He stresses the need for the entire state machinery — from police to prosecution — to operate impartially and effectively, devoid of any biases or influences. “All of this is easier said than done, but the efforts must go on,” he states as he proposes the following reforms:

- Clear sentencing rules and regular training for judges on implicit bias to ensure consistent and unbiased decision-making.

- Create independent oversight for police and more emphasis on the usage of technology, videography of evidence collection and mandatory forensic evidence in grave cases.

- Strengthen the public prosecution system to check and stop any external influences. Increase transparency in prosecutorial decisions to ensure cases are handled fairly.

- Ensure everyone has access to good legal representation.

- Promote responsible media reporting and educate the public on equal justice to avoid media influence on cases.

- Implement strong anti-corruption measures to prevent misuse of power and money.

- Protect whistleblowers who expose misconduct in the legal system to maintain integrity.

In addition, Prof Patgiri advocates for a societal shift in perspective towards the value of human lives, particularly those of disadvantaged communities.

“We need to reflect on how we view people. The lives of poor people are not dispensable. The perception is that they don’t contribute to society, but that is far from the truth,” she says as she calls for stricter, equitable laws and heightened awareness to deter reckless behaviour, measures like creating walkable cities and reducing car dependency.

“These kids think this is normal and they have some impunity so why bother about human lives? Examples must be set that they are not immune to the law,” she asserts.

She also highlights the role of the parents and guardians in these situations where they can instil responsible behaviour among youths. “Driving should be seen as a necessity rather than a status symbol,” she asserts, adding, “Kids shouldn’t be given a car to show off, but as a thing that assists in travel.”