Had the Indian government decided not to withdraw an ordinance to overturn a Supreme Court’s decision, conviction of Lalu Prasad Yadav in a fodder scam case would have carried little political importance.

The apex court recently ruled that legislators in the Parliament and state assemblies convicted for crimes punishable with a jail term of two years or more would be disqualified from their elected offices and will not be able to contest elections for a certain period of time. The Cabinet had earlier decided to overturn this decision by passing an ordinance. However, due to the public outcry over the proposed ordinance coupled with the opposition from Congress leader Rahul Gandhi — which came to the surprise of many — the Cabinet led by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh had to withdraw the ordinance.

Lalu, former Railways Minister and chief minister of Bihar, has been sentenced to five years and Rs2.5 million fine for the illegal withdrawal of Rs377 million. Prasad faces charges in four other fodder scam cases.

Does this spell the end of Lalu’s political innings? He and his family members have not yet given up. Describing the charges as “conspiracy,” they plan to appeal against them in a higher court.

If a higher court overturns conviction of Prasad, who also heads the Bihar-based Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD), he will be able to contest elections again.

It is worthy to note that a special Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) court in Ranchi, Jharkhand, has convicted the former Bihar chief minister. The RJD leader reserves the right to challenge the verdict in higher courts.

Political pundits say higher courts may exonerate him. The process, however, may take a few months, a few years or could stretch on for decades. True, justice delayed is better than justice denied.

The Indian judicial system is known for its many weaknesses, one of which is denying quick trials to persons detained in jails. Had the ordinance not been withdrawn or had the Supreme Court not delivered such a verdict, Prasad would have been able to contest polls even from behind the bars.

One is also forced to wonder as to why other politicians have been spared the judicial hammer. It may be recalled, Shashi Tharoor was pressured to resign from his post as Minister of State for External Affairs in April 2010 following allegations that he misused his office to get shares in the Indian Premier League (IPL) cricket franchise of Cochin. But he did not face disqualification from the Parliament. Ironically, within less than a month he was nominated as a member of the Parliamentary Standing Committee. Currently, Tharoor is the Minister of State for Human Resource Development.

Mohammad Azharuddin, a cricket legend, was implicated in match-fixing case in December 2000 and was banned by the Board of Cricket Control for India (BCCI) from playing cricket for life. He and a few other cricketers faced the match-fixing charges following the release of a CBI report in November 2000. Azharuddin challenged the BCCI’s decision in a civil court in 2001, which upheld the ban in 2003. He moved the Andhra Pradesh High Court, where the legal battle lasted for eight years. Finally on Nov.8, 2012, the High Court judicial bench ruled that in the absence of incriminating evidence against Azharuddin, the ban against him was “unsustainable.”

Had Azharuddin been arrested for two years or more and the new controversial ordinance then been in force, apart from being banned from playing cricket, he would not have been able to contest and win the 2009 parliamentary elections.

These cases have hit headlines because they involve celebrities. The bitter reality is that not all behind the bars are actually criminals. Numerous Muslims, falsely branded as terrorists, have been languishing in Indian prisons for several years.

Mohammed Amir Khan, 32, spent 14 years in Delhi’s Tihar jail for allegedly having masterminded 19 bombings in Delhi and other areas between December 1996 and October 1997. A Delhi court acquitted him earlier this year for a lack of evidence. Democratically, Khan has the right to contest elections as any other Indian citizen. But despite his being innocent, had the controversial ordinance been earlier in force, he would not have been legally permitted to do so. The same can be said about several other Muslims arrested for their alleged involvement in the May 18, 2007 Makkah Masjid blast in Hyderabad. They were finally released and absolved of all charges.

Clearly, there is a clear difference between a person being convicted for a crime by a lower court and the decision being upheld or rejected by the higher courts, finally the apex court. The cases cited here are a few examples of lower courts’ decision not always being favored by the higher courts. When there exists such a major question mark over the verdicts of lower courts, which can be corrected by the higher courts, why should their decision disturb the “convicted” persons’ professional life? Azharuddin has faced this as a cricketer. Now, it is to be seen whether it will mark the end of the political innings of Laluji or not?

[email protected]