RIGHTS OF PRISONERS Star Offenders and Hypocritical Justice

DP - RIGHTS
RD20
January - 07
LEGAL NEWS AND VIEWS MAGAZINE, 01 JAN 2007
RIGHTS OF PRISONERS
Star Offenders and Hypocritical Justice
Subhradipta Sarkar and
No one commits a worse injustice than when it is
done in the name of justice - Plato
Of late, our courts have been found to be
lenient in dealing with cases involving popular
personalities like Navjot Singh Sidhu, Sanjay Dutt
and Salman Khan - all involved in quite serious
criminal offences.
However, not many are
complaining because the offenders are high-profile
figures. There are hands of solidarity, opinions of
peers legitimizing their actions, sympathy flowing
from fans and supporters. The mood is - so
what if he was responsible for running over
somebody's life or possessing a gun? After all,
he is a crowd puller, a role model, an iconic
figure! Who cares for the victim? He is nothing
more than a non-identity. Who cares that hundreds
of innocent non-identities accused of lesser
offences are thrown behind the bars even without
a fair trial?
There are 'trials by media', the outcome of
which are determined through phone calls, e-mails
and SMSs. They neither need to confirm any
legal standards nor look into the offences from
the victim's point of view. But in the entire circus,
how can the judicial process be such hypocritical
which is far from being termed as 'fair trial'? How
can it be subdued so easily?
Take the case of Sidhu. Sidhu 'killed' a
person merely because he tried to overtake
Sidhu's car! After e i g h t e e n years of the
commission of the crime, he is convicted of
culpable homicide not amounting to murder with
a jail term of 3 year and fine amounting to Rs. 1
lakh. All these years, he has enjoyed a 'star'
status as a cricketer, commentator, and analyst,
and of course, as a host of a popular comedy
show; and earned millions through different
endorsements till date and also has been people's
1/3
Archana Sarma
representative in the Parliament. Unperturbed by
the judgment, he is presently busy campaigning
for Shiromani Akali Dal-BJP alliance for the
upcoming Punjab Assembly elections. On the
flip side, the victim's family had waited for justice
for all these years. The trial court eluded them.
Finally the Punjab and Haryana High Court
showed a glimpse of hope to the bereaved family.
However, when the Court pronounced the quantum
of punishment, the hope seems to have lost in
oblivion forever. In its verdict the Court added
that the sentence is suspended till January 31,
2007. This means Sidhu will not be jailed for now
and has time till then to appeal before the
Supreme Court against the verdict. There is ample
doubt whether he would ever be behind the bars.
Fine imposed on him is too meager to bring any
sort of solace either. Reparation is the first and
the foremost objective in rendering justice to
individuals and groups whose rights have been
violated and who are, therefore, entitled to remedy
and r e d r e s s . This i n c l u d e s restitution,
compensation, satisfaction and assurances and
guarantees of non-repetition. Reparation implies
the acknowledgement that serious wrongs were
done to the other party. Sadly, the Court has
missed the bus. Today, when we vehemently
argue in favour of Jessica Lai, Nitish Katara and
many others in terms of victim's justice, such
judgments will definitely put the cause miles back.
Sanjay Dutt possessed sophisticatea AK56 only for self defence and surprisingly the Court
accepted that argument. There are many important
personalities in Mumbai who have received threats
from the crime world, how many of them have
possessed such deadly weapons? He also had a
9mm pistol. Further, it was the submission of
the Central Bureau of Investigation that another
AK-56 had been destroyed by melting it in a
Prisoners' Rights
foundry. Two of Dutt's friends have been
convicted, inter alia, for destroying evidenced
He had rubbed shoulders with dreaded criminals
still the court carried out the wishes of the
'Gandhlan' not to brand him as a 'terrorist' and
relieving him from charges of TADA (anti-terrorism
legislation) and criminal conspiracy. The court
went ahead by graciously extending his bail up
to December 19 which will definitely allow him to
move the High Court for bail. The process can
go up to the Supreme Court and there is a very
slim chance of him being put behind the bars.
Ironically, the very next day the same Court
stumped three other co-accused in the same case
under TADA. During the 1992-93 riots, in spite
of the fact that the arms were nowhere found,
there are several instances of people been
rounded up for possessing arms. Unfortunately
these people do not have 'fan clubs' to support
them. Hence, they face the ordeal. On the
contrary, within days of his conviction, Dutt
obliged the photographers by posing with Jimmy
Nanda, the winner of the Gladrags, Mrs India
2007, at the beauty pageant contest.
Drunken Salman crushed one to death and
injured four others under the wheels of his car in
September, 2002. While recently he has been
convicted in the 1998 poaching case by a Jodhpur
court (no wonder he is out on bail), this case
drags on. He was out on bail bond amounting
around Rs. 1000! And going by the precedence
of his counterparts, there is hardly any possibility
of a 'fair trial'. He is safe because he is a popular
figure - a star. Let alone the victim's justice, had
the offender been a poor bus or taxi driver, law
would have taken altogether a different stance. It
is interesting to note that in both of his cases,
the key witnesses turned hostile. This is not the
only incident that a star has been involved in a
hit-and-run case and was let off easily. There are
similar incidents in the past. As far back as
1965, actress Tanuja had run a person down and
got off with a Rs 500 bail bond. In 1993,
Rajkumar's son Puru Rajkumar had run down
four people, of whom three died, but a Mumbai
court ordered him to merely pay Rs 25,000 as
compensation for each of the three killed and Rs
5,000 for the one injured. And in July 1999, Aditya
2/3
Pancholi had run down two patrolling policemen
and he too got off with a Rs 950 bail.
Would the outcomes be the same, had our
'celebrity offenders' been any common Indian?
While the convicted stars do not go to prisons,
nearly 67% of the inmates in India's jails are
under trials. Many have served terms far
exceeding the sentences they would have been
given had they been convicted of their crimes.
Many of those suffer incarceration simply because
they do not have the financial capacity to furnish
bail bond. In spite of Supreme Court's direction
in this regard in the case of Moti Ram v. State of
M.P., it is pertinent to note that the lower courts
flout such direction routinely, refusing to grant
bail without sureties or order them to be released
on their own bond. In January this year, a person
from Assam was released from the jail after 54
years without any trial! Two other persons from
the state of Uttar Pradesh also reportedly spent
more than half of their lives in police custody
without ever facing trial. Why is this dichotomy?
Where does the concept of victim's justice
actually lie in Indian jurisprudence? The above
judgments pitifully pointed out that there has been
an all-round failure by the courts and the judiciary
is obligated to find answers to those queries.
The cherished concepts of equality before law
and equal protection of laws, fair trial, rule of law
and reparation have been brutally slaughtered in
the name of justice.
Hence, the bottom-line is clear - if you are
a 'public figure' you can get away with impunity
after committing any act, prohibited by law. One
may point out to the case of Shibu Soren. In
spite of being a 'public figure', he was convicted
with life and nobody is pleading for leniency.
There are few reasons. First, the general image
of the politicians is controversial in the public
eye. People assume them to have nexus with
the crime world. Secondly, his case was of a
planned execution unlike the above mentioned
cases. Finally, it's an exception. There are
numerous political figures in our country who have
criminal records against their names but Soren
was 'unfortunate' to be nailed down. And with the
matrix of appeal and bail wide open, it would be
Prisoners' Rights
interesting to see, what period he actually spends
behind the bars. Significantly, there are news
reports where the victim's family has claimed
that in spite of judicial developments in their
favour, they continue to face almost daily threats
and live in the shadow of fear."
No doubt Sidhus are popular figures, great
entertainers; however that do not absolve them
from the crimes they have committed. They are
neither Infallible nor above the law. One can
preach 'Gandhism', still can possess deadly
weapons; one can encourage laughter and banter,
still can beat a person mercilessly to cause death
for a trifling issue; one can be a loveable boy
called 'Prem' in romantic movies, at the same
time can be responsible to ruin poor families.
There is a wide rift between the reel and real
lives. What they do on the screen is not for
charity but in exchange of a large sum of money.
It is not surprising, that even after being
convicted, they have been received warmly
among their fans. In case of Sanjay Dutt, following
the court judgment, a signature campaign was
arranged to show leniency! Thankfully, wisdom
prevailed after the special prosecutor had warned
that those collecting signatures on Sanjay Dutt's
behalf could be charged with contempt of court.
Then only Dutt called off the campaign. It goes
without saying that the audacious way, the stars
have behaved at every stage, has made mockery
of law and justice. The public can be deceived
by those acts but the truth is that the judiciary
also seemed to have bogged down by their
charisma and showed unjustified leniency.
At this juncture, while analyzing the
behaviour of the courts, it is appropriate to look
into the matter through the glasses of
jurisprudence. According to the school of
American realism, statutes are not law by virtue
of their enactment. They only become law when
applied by a decision of a court. Hence, the role
of the judge is central to a proper understanding
of the nature of law. The realists argue that
besides the written rules and facts, there are
certain 'illusive factors', outside the realm of law,
which affect the outcome of the cases. Such
factors can be racial, religious, economic etc.,
which can prejudice the judge In delivering his
judgment. In the aforementioned cases, such
factors could have been the personal stature of
the offenders, media reports and the public
opinion. Whatever be the reason, they have
worked adversely on the path of attaining justice
as the judges appeared to have carried away by
them.
In this context, there should not be any
reservation in saying that the courts have showed
non-application of mind and thus have rendered
flawed justice. It is unfortunate that such
judgments convey wrong messages to such star
figures and the society in general. They serve to
highlight the apathy of courts and related judicial
institutions towards the plight of common men.
Right to bail and appeal seem to favour the 'star'
perpetrators, others have no say in such affairs.
Again from the victim's point of view, in devising
strategies of justice it must be borne in mind
that lack of reparation for victims and Impunity
of perpetrators are two sides of the same coin.
With public trust on the executive at a
vanishing point, judiciary still holds the respect
as the last and the only resort. Unless rectified,
such biased attitude towards these popular
personalities will soon spell a doomsday. It's a
serious wakening call.
END NOTES
1. Editorial, "Arm's Length", The Telegraph,
November 29, 2006, available at http.7/
www.telegraphindia.com/1061129/asp/opinion/
story_7062785.asp
2. Sanjay Prabhakar, "Salman Khan released on
bail", NDTV.com, September 30, 2002,
available at http://www.ndtv.com/topstories/
showtopstory.asp?id=10245
3. AIR 1978 SC 1594.
4. Many Sharma, "Soren case: Fear haunts
victim's family", NDTV.com, November 29,
2006, available at http://www.ndtv.com/
morenews/showmorestory.asp? category=
National
5. "Dutt asks friends to stop signature campaign",
NDTV.com, December 9, 2006, available at
http://ndtv.com/morenews/
showmorestory.asp?id=97657
6. For details, see, J.G. RIddal, Jurisprudence,
(Butterworths, London, 1999), Pp. 222 - 233.
<title>Star Offenders and Hypocritical Justice</title>
<author>Subhradipta Sarkar</author>
<keywords>LR1</keywords>
<publication>The Legal News and Views</publication>
<pubDate>01/01/2007</pubDate>
<description>There are hands of solidarity,opinions of peers legitimizing their
actions, Sympathy flowing fromfans and supporters</description>
<classif>B81</classif>
<entrydt>16/01/2007</entrydt>
<sd>RP</sd>
3/3
Prisoners' Rights