Mob psychology cannot be law, says the Supreme Court lawyer of a petition to seek pardon for actor Sanjay Dutt.
By Neethu M.
NEW DELHI: Dramatic events unfolded after the Supreme Court sentenced Bollywood super star Sanjay Dutt to five years of jail imprisonment in connection with the 1993 Mumbai blasts. He was convicted under the Arms Act for illegal possession of lethal weapons.
The whole issue got a Bollywood twist after the retired Supreme Court Justice and the current Press Council of India Chairman, Markandey Katju, appealed to the Maharashtra governor and the President of India for pardoning Dutt even after Dutt made a public statement that he will not seek mercy from the court. Now a petition is going around the country gathering signatures to seek pardon for Dutt.
While Dutt’s counsel and senior lawyer Majeed Memom is in full support, both personally and lawfully for Katju’s appeal for pardon for Dutt, there are few others who totally disagree with him.
The American Bazaar spoke to Supreme Court lawyer Renjith Marar who disagrees with Memon, and is of the opinion that lawfully Katju cannot plead on Dutt’s behalf under Article 124(7) of the Indian Constitution.
Excerpts of the interview:
Taking into account developing events in the Sanjay Dutt issue, do you think there is a possibility that the severity of the crime could be washed out?
The principal charge of conspiracy of having concealed the arms and caused the bomb blasts including the offence under the TADA Act was not proved against Sanjay Dutt earlier. Mr. Dutt’s possession of the arms led him to face the charge of having committed an offence punishable under Arms Act, 1959. It has been proved by the prosecution and he was convicted by the TADA Court. Thereafter he was sentenced to undergo a rigorous imprisonment for six years along with a fine of Rs. 25,000. The severity of the crime cannot be ignored. Law remains the same for everyone.
What are further legal options for Sanjay Dutt?
He could file a review petition under Order XLI Rule 2 of the Supreme Court but that may not be a resourceful remedy since the chance of interference is almost nil. Then he could file a curative petition, raising a plea of non-hearing or malafide hearing which in this case would not exist. He could also file an application under Section 432 of the Cr.p.C. to the Central Government for remission commutation or prefer an application under Article 72 of the Constitution of India to the president claiming clemency.
Why should there be pardon and leniency for Sanjay Dutt when so many have suffered during the terror attacks? The film fraternity from across the country has come out pronouncing their support to him. In fact the whole country seems to be divided on this issue- ‘pro and anti Dutt’. Do you think that just because he is a film star, he can get away with the punishment? And can one take into consideration his ‘settled life’ after the 1993 attack?
Not that he is a film actor would make his case different. Not even that he is married and has two kids would make his case different. It should not be set as a precedent that a film actor who acts for profit, even in roles portraying Gandhiji, could be granted clemency by the president of India. The support from the film fraternity is because he comes from the same fraternity. But there are various other legal grounds available to the accused in the Bombay Blast trial, including for Dutt.
As far as public support is concerned, there is danger prevailing in it. One should not succumb to the demand of that part of the public who has not even studied the subject.
Rajya Sabha members, including Amar Singh, met the Governor to seek pardon for Dutt. They should have at least read the Constitution before having met the Governor if they had the right intentions. The Governor does not have the power to pardon Mr. Dutt. I wonder how these persons are serving their duties as members of the legislature. They are supposed to study the law and the constitution, since their actions and inactions in the capacity as MPs are not only affecting the life of Dutt who may represent the affluent class, but also millions of others who have reposed faith in them and directly or indirectly elected them.
In so far as the ‘settled life’ is concerned, I would say that the case of Mr. Dutt could not be looked as different from others. In a mature society the purpose of punishment should be to reform the accused and to bring him back to normal life, not to take revenge on him. Are we mature enough so as to take a right step towards the implementation of the reformatory theory of punishment? If so, then notwithstanding that Dutt is only a film actor, his application needs to be considered mercifully.
How do you justify the cry for mercy that we find today from the common people? Today a petition to free Sanjay Dutt, started by a fan of Sanjay Dutt has already accumulated more than 1500 signatures. Do you think the support of the mob is going to influence the judgment?
Mob psychology cannot be law.
Justice (retired) Markandey Katju has appealed to the Maharashtra governor K Sankarnarayanan to pardon Dutt. In petitioning for mercy, Katju has cited how the actor in the movie series Munna Bhai MBBS revived the memory of Bapu through the act of Gandhigiri? What is your take on Katju’s appeal for mercy?
I would only say it has been unfortunate that he (Katju) has interfered in the matter putting doubt in the minds of millions of common people about the sanctity of the judgment of the apex court of the nation. He has set an example by which people would start questioning the judgment of the court, without right intentions.
Katju also says, “If you study Articles 72 and 161 of the Constitution, they do not state who can appeal. Section 72 provides power to the President to pardon and section 166 to the governor. But both sections do not state who can appeal and it is not written on what grounds pardons can be given. There could be thousands of ground for pardon”.
Quoting Section 166 is wrong. Secondly Article 161 does not give the governor any power. State government or the governor has no jurisdiction at all in the matter. As per Article 72 only the president has jurisdiction in so far as the Arms Act is concerned.
Sanjay Dutt had already made a public statement that he will not appeal for mercy. In that context how does Katju’s appeal for him become relevant?
The question is should a retired judge of the Supreme Court take the act of being any other person for a convict whose conviction has been upheld by the Supreme Court . By virtue of Article 124 (7) of the Constitution of India no person who has held office as a Judge of the Supreme Court shall plead or act in any court or before any authority with in the territory of India.
The action now perpetrated by Mr. Katju is nothing but violation of Article 124 (7) of the Constitution of India and has to be met with the contempt it deserves.
Prior to a court trial, we find a media trial. Do you think there is a media hype which is distorting the Sanjay Dutt’s case?
I would say a well-studied balanced opinion by the media is necessary and need to be expressed. The judges should not be carried away by the same, since in India the judge is doing both the work of jury and the judge. The Judge needs to be composed and mature. The media needs to be responsible. I would also suggest that the legal correspondents need to be legally educated. There cannot be a blanket restriction otherwise many a scam would not be unearthed and the public opinion could not be generated. The public opinion, mind you, of the day is being farmed to become the law of the nation for years to come.