1.
Reactions to Court Verdicts 1
Why Do People React so Divergently to Court Verdicts in India?
Two Psychological Possibilities
by
Arish Ojaswi
Indian Institute of Technology Hyderabad
cs13b1005@iith.ac.in
June 10, 2015
Introduction
The Indian Constitution ensures independence of the Judiciary from the other branches
of the government. This is intended to stop unnecessary influence from the other parts
of the government or powerful citizens. To me and all other citizens also, equality in
administration of the law is ​a ​sine qua non ​of any democratic society.
Sadly, the rich vs. poor divide still prevails in the justice system of India. Over the past
decades, there have been instances where the impartiality of the Indian Judiciary has
seemingly come into question. For example, celebrities from movies or politics usually
get away scot­free after being arrested or sentenced for drunken driving or engaging in
corrupt practices. Further, large corporations drag on lawsuits so long that the smaller
businesses or plaintiffs either run out of money or give up the case. The ​Bangalore
Principles of Judicial Conduct (2002),​ among its essential values, states: “​impartiality,
not only to the decision itself but also to the process by which the decision is made” (p.
3). ​However, money in a court of law results in compromise of these standards.
Personal biases among judges also lead them to favour the rich and powerful for
several reasons. First, the judges associate themselves more with people of their own
high economic class than with the poor. Second, defending the powerful opens the tacit
possibility of a much larger quid pro quo than defending the poor or the unknown. I
illustrate below these problems from opinions expressed in the social media.

2.
Reactions to Court Verdicts 2
Salman Khan’s 2002 Case of Hit­and­Run
On September 28, 2002, Salman Khan’s Toyota Land Cruiser drove over a footpath and
into the wall of a bakery in the middle of the night, killing one and injuring four others in
Mumbai. Khan’s bodyguard and police constable, Ravindra Patil filed a First Information
Report (FIR) of the incident to the police. Patil later stated that Salman had been driving
under the influence of alcohol and had ignored his advice to drive slowly. In the midst of
witness examination in 2006, Patil stopped attending court hearings because he did not
want to face the defence lawyer. An arrest warrant was issued for Patil because of his
absence from court hearings. He was sacked from his job as a policeman, and
incarcerated in solitary confinement at Arthur Road Jail as if he were a high­profile
criminal! Despite such obvious pressure, Patil stuck to his original statement until he
died in 2007.
Twelve years later, Salman’s family driver Ashok Singh claimed that he was driving the
car, and that the accident was because of a burst tyre. Salman agreed with Singh,
denying that he was under the influence of alcohol when the accident occurred.
Salman’s lawyer accused Patil to have lied. Later on, blood samples taken from Salman
after the incident suggested that Salman had actually consumed a high volume of
alcohol. The Mumbai Sessions Court found Salman guilty of all charges. When the
prosecution sought the maximum punishment of ten years, Salman and his lawyer
pleaded a lesser sentence in view of his humanitarian work. Salman’s lawyer argued
that Salman had paid Rupees nineteen lakh as compensation to the victims and “would
do more if ordered.”
Salman committed blatant perjury by presenting false evidence, and accused the doctor
of falsifying his blood report. The only motivation for Salman doing so could have been
the certainty in his mind that he might be acquitted of the charges any way. He perhaps
believed that the court would rule in his favour. Had he considered the possibility of
conviction, he might not have lied under oath. Contrary to his assumptions, however,
the Mumbai Sessions Court convicted him of all charges and sentenced him to five
years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 30,000.
The doubt against our justice system arose because the Bombay High Court suspended
his sentence on the same evening and granted him bail on the third day. The public
were up in their arms, and their reactions in the media are the topics of my study.
Public Opinions
Criminal proceedings against any Bollywood celebrity have always been topics of hot
debate across the nation: Be it Sanjay Dutt’s illegal possession of weapons, Shiney

3.
Reactions to Court Verdicts 3
Ahuja’s sexually assaulting his domestic help, or Salman Khan’s black­buck killing and
hit­and­run. While some want justice, others come on streets in support of the accused.
When Dutt was sentenced to five years in prison, for example, several film­makers filed
petitions to delay his sentence to enable him complete his ongoing films.
I list below how people expressed diverse opinions on the judgement of the Sessions
Court. While some concurred with the decision, others questioned the severity of
punishment. Importantly, there was a lot of sympathy from the Bollywood fraternity. To
me, such diversity in opinions leads to a hypothesis that no one is fair and objective,
worthy of a psychological inquiry.
Those who supported court’s judgment of conviction
Most middle­class people supported Salman’s conviction, arguing that Salman should
be treated like any other accused rather than a Bollywood celebrity. A few celebrities
publicly acknowledged Salman’s guilt and tweeted as follows:
“People seem kinda sad about Salman khan being convicted:how about directing sadness to
the ones who lost a family member or DIED?​ ​#justice​”
Theatre Director Nida Butt (@nidabutt9), 12:00 PM ­ 6 May 2015
“Would​ ​#SalmanKhan​ ever hit & run as a movie hero. I don't think so.​ ​#SalmanVerdict​”
Musician Salman Ahmad (@sufisal),​ ​2:24 PM ­ 6 May 2015
Those who supported Salman’s acquittal but did not openly oppose court’s
decision
Although the entire Bollywood fraternity expressed emotional support for Salman, a few
of them did openly disagree with the court’s decision. Those who appeared diplomatic in
their expressions of opinions on the conviction were trying to avoid repercussions of
public contempt of the court’s decision.
“It would be inappropriate to comment on the court's decision but my thoughts and prayers
are with Salman bhai and his family.”
Actress Soha Ali Khan (@sakpataudi),​ ​3:08 PM ­ 6 May 2015

4.
Reactions to Court Verdicts 4
“Not commenting on courts verdict­ but my heart goes out 2​ ​@BeingSalmanKhan
:largehearted & 1 of d finest people I hv met in this industry.”
ActorRiteishDeshmukh (@Riteishd),​ ​12:07 PM ­ 6 May 2015
“I won't comment on the courts judgement. But salman Bhai has the biggest heart and is the
most helpful person in this industry”
Actor Varun Dhawan (@Varun_dvn),​ ​12:29 PM ­ 6 May 2015
Those who questioned the conviction
There were a few people who could not hold back their opinions, pledging strong
support for Salman’s innocence. Surprisingly, some went to the extent of blaming the
victims themselves.
“Suicide is crime so is sleeping on footpath..80% homeles film ppl strugld achievd stardom but
never slept on footpath​ ​@BeingSalmanKhan​”
Singer Abhijeet Bhattacharya (@abhijeetsinger),​ ​1:59PM ­ 6 May 2015
“Kutta rd pe soyega kutte ki maut marega, roads garib ke baap ki nahi hai I ws homles an
year nvr slept on rd”(Translate: If a dog sleeps on the road, it will die like a dog. The roads do
not belong to the fathers of the poor. I was homeless for a year, but never slept on the road.)
Singer Abhijeet Bhattacharya (@abhijeetsinger), 11:29 AM ­​ ​May 6, 2015
“The govt should be responsible for housing ppl.If no 1was sleeping on d road in any other
country Salman wuld not have driven over anybody.”
Jewellery Designer Farah Khan Ali (​@FarahKhanAli​), 1:00 AM ­ 6 May 2015

5.
Reactions to Court Verdicts 5
“It doesn't matter what anyone or any court says he doesn't deserve this at any level...”
Actor Arjun Kapoor (@arjunk26),​ ​12:49 PM ­ 6 May 2015
Two Hypotheses for Divergent Opinions
Information asymmetry: ​For a huge majority of people, the only source of information on
the Salman Khan case has been the media reports. Most of them did not have any
contact with either the accused or the court. Thus, information available to the judge
and the public might not have been the same. Given that people react to whatever
information is readily available to them, I propose that information asymmetry can be a
reasonable hypothesis for the divergent views cited earlier.
Attitudes as anchors: ​We perceive things as we are, not as they are. Why? Right from
our childhood, we form attitudes about people and events. Once favourable or
unfavourable attitudes are formed, they serve as anchor against which incoming
information adjusted. I hypothesized that people expressing divergent views were
adjusting the information about conviction or suspension of sentence against their
already formed attitude of Salman Khan. While those with favourable attitude towards
Salman discounted the conviction, those with favourable attitude toward justice and/or
victims discounted any claim of innocence. By discounting I mean assigning less
importance to the information available than our existing attitudes. Those who took a
neutral or diplomatic stance might have weighed both the information available and their
existing pro or contra attitude towards the case rather equally.
In sum, both the hypotheses of information asymmetry and anchoring of information
against pre­existing attitudes can be via explanations of divergent opinions not only
about Salman Khan’s case but also about cases of Jayalalithaa or Lalu Prasad Yadav.
The challenge now lies in devising an experiment that might test which of the two
hypotheses has better merit.
Acknowledgements
This report was prepared under the tutelage of Professor Ramadhar Singh during my
May­June Internship at the Indian Institute of Management Bangalore. I am grateful to
the Indian Institute of Management Bangalore for providing me with the opportunity to
be mentored by Professor Singh. I also thank Dr. Naureen Bhullar, Ms. Krithiga
Sankaran, and Ms. Namratha for their assistance during my internship. The
interpretations made are mine.