The Hindu Business Line : Dutt case — Judgment sends tough signal

Chennai: The expected has happened. Mr Sanjay Dutt, the Samajwadi Party candidate from Lucknow, has been denied permission by the Supreme Court to contest the Lok Sabha election. On Tuesday, the Apex Court refused to suspend the conviction of, and award of six-year prison sentence to, Mr Dutt by the trial court in the 1993 Mumbai serial blast case.

This is a significant judgment, though it has set the cat among the pigeons. The main argument against this verdict is that when a good many candidates with criminal background, including several convicted of various crimes, are allowed to contest the elections, why should this popular Bollywood actor be denied the opportunity to “turn a new leaf and serve the people of Lucknow?”

Prima facie, one cannot fault this argument, especially considering that Mr Dutt is no “habitual criminal” and is not involved in any other criminal case, as pointed out by the Supreme Court while pronouncing the verdict. So, when you compare him with the “criminally tainted” representatives who have won their State legislature or even the Lok Sabha seats by forcing their constituents to vote for them, this verdict might sound harsh.

But as various pundits have been trying to explain over the last 24 hours, there is a legal difference between the two. Apparently, if you want to contest an election for the first time but have been convicted of a crime, you are not eligible. But if you are an already elected ‘honourable member’ of any legislature, you can contest the elections even if you are convicted of a crime. If you are in prison, that is only a small disadvantage; your constituents can still express full faith in you, treat you like mai-baap and return you to office!

Sidhu parallel

The oft cited case is that of cricketer Navjot Singh Sidhu, who was convicted for murder by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in 2006 when he was a BJP MP from Amritsar. Following the judgment, however, Mr Sidhu resigned as MP, and with the court’s permission contested again in the by-election, and won!

Many BJP leaders’ high-pitched claims, when Mr Sanjay Dutt’s case was compared to Mr Sidhu’s, that the latter had the “moral courage to resign,” rings hollow because one can argue that the cricketer should have continued with the same strain of moral courage and abstained from seeking electoral office till his name was cleared.

Mind you, the BJP candidate was convicted for murder, while the case against the film-star pertains to possession of weapons, which he says he considered necessary in view of the threats he had been receiving in the communally surcharged atmosphere in Mumbai at the turn of the millennium.

Notwithstanding the huge sympathy wave Mr Dutt is bound to generate, to some measure due to his endearing roles in the two Munnabhai films but more for the goodwill his late father Sunil Dutt had generated both in the film industry and in Parliament, the Supreme Court has sent out the right signal. At the best of times our politicians do not inspire any great respect for their ethics, morals or values. And legislatures already have a good number of netas with criminal background. This country hardly needs any more questionable people added to the ranks of its leaders.

What about Gujarat’s Mayaben?

Coming to justice catching up with the tainted Gujarat Minister for, ironically, Women’s and Children’s Welfare, Ms Maya Kodnani. She finally resigned and surrendered before the Special Investigation Team (SIT) constituted by the Supreme Court to probe the post-Godhra riot cases. With the Gujarat High Court cancelling the anticipatory bail granted to her, she had no option but to resign and surrender. Noted the Court while delivering the verdict: “Religious fanatics are no less than terrorists.”

The charge against her is that, as MLA of Naroda, she stood by as mobs molested, raped and burnt women. Ironically, she was elevated to the post of a Minister in a subsequent government in Gujarat. Now, apparently, she has resigned only from the Cabinet but not the Assembly. Were she to resign as an MLA, which would necessitate a by-election, will she be allowed to contest because she was already a sitting MLA when the carnage happened? Of course, she is yet to be convicted. But her ouster from the Narendra Modi Cabinet thanks to the Supreme Court shows that though the wheels of justice move slowly, they do grind.

More Stories on : Politics | Courts/Legal Issues | Rasheeda Bhagat

Article E-Mail :: Comment :: Syndication :: Printer Friendly Page

Stories in this Section
Nuclear issues — Face-off with Obama Administration

Dutt case — Judgment sends tough signal

A corporate politically quiet in bastion

It is party time in AP

Watchdog groups sound alert on candidates

Limited liability partnership turning reality for corporates

Govt staff can get higher medical reimbursement

CBDT spells out format for e-filing of information

Re-count