Entitlement mustn't bend laws any more

This may not be a scandal of Epstein-ish proportions, but at its core, the recent incident in Kanpur of a reportedly inebriated driver ramming a Lamborghini into pedestrians and vehicles also has 'entitlement' written all over. The rich and/or influential believing themselves to be above the law, or be measured by a separate system from the aam citizenry, cannot (continue to) be normalised. The usual line of defence has already been trotted out: Shivam Mishra, son of a Kanpur tobacco industrialist, was not behind the wheel, someone else was; the car malfunctioned. CCTV evidence has been unable to ascertain who was driving because of the car's tinted windows - even as factory-fitted tints or RTO-approved films below 70% visible light transmission standards for front and rear windows and 50% for the sides are illegal since a 2012 Supreme Court ruling anyway.

Reckless behaviour from 'Do you know who I am?' members of society must be curbed once and for all. Past cases of such misuse can't be laid out as 'whataboutery'. In most such cases, there is public outrage, media attention, which then evaporates once the case itself mysteriously disintegrates due to lack of evidence or 'unreliable' witnesses. Such selective bending of law erodes trust in institutions and processes, emboldens reckless behaviour among those who believe they have the means to get away with it, and cultivates cynicism among ordinary citizens who see a pattern of leniency reserved for the privileged.

The law is not a suggestion, and privilege doesn't confer immunity. The Kanpur case must be investigated thoroughly and mustn't be a perfunctory exercise. If for nothing else but to send out the message that in Uttar Pradesh, the law applies equally to everyone.