That Zaheera Sheikh should become the face of perjury may seem tragic to those who would argue that there’s a difference between a teenaged, socially vulnerable, riot victim and those partying away that night with Jessica Lall seven years ago. But not only must we not let our hearts rule our heads in matters of law — nuanced value judgments cannot and must not be written into a legal code — we must also recognise that perjury as a crime is so easily committed in India that Zaheera’s conviction is a landmark precedent.

Of course, those who were behind Zaheera’s flip-flops must also be pursued, as the court has observed, but the circumstances of lying in court cannot be brought in as mitigating factors against the fact of lying. So, as reports as well as comments by V.N. Khare and Fali Nariman in this newspaper have clearly pointed out, a fairly well-known set of solutions must be applied.   First, apply the perjury laws, unfailingly and effectively. Section of 191 of the Indian Penal Code defines perjury and Section 193 sets the punishment. Putative perjurers must know that a lie will be pursued under these provisions but they must also know that their prosecution won’t wait for the trial to finish. This is a must, both as a deterrent and as a means to saving the trial from subversion.

The second reform follows from this: the need to keep the trial meaningful. The government is considering freezing the status of the first testimony. A retraction won’t be allowed to invalidate the initial statement; Section 154 of the Indian Evidence Act would have to be amended. Another proposed reform is changing Section 164, so that witnesses can be pinned down to their statements. There are also suggestions that judges use Section 311 of the Criminal Procedure Court, and call and examine persons concerned with a trial when there are indications of subversion. No one, rich, poor, Hindu, Muslim, party leader or party hopper, must feel comfortable with perjury.