ARE JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
IN INDIA MORE BIASED
TOWARDS CELEBRITIES?
~Rachana K [Symbiosis Law School, Pune]
Answering ‘yes’ to the title question above, means that in a country where ‘RIGHT TO EQUALITY’ is a fundamental
right incorporated in Article 14 of the Indian constitution there are discrepancies in the reality of its execution. Does
the concept of ‘Rule of Law’, which is considered such a substantial element of our country’s judicial system
disappear and disappoint when it comes to celebrities?
On the other hand a ‘no’ to the question would mean that fame, power, money and influence have no impact on a right
that is so vital and entailed. Is the ‘Aam Aadmi’ and a celebrity treated alike and do they face the same trials,
tribulations and the same consequences?
After studying some of the noted cases we can make a definite statement.
Navjot Singh Sidhu – the famous cricketer turned politician.
He was convicted in 2006 for culpable homicide not amounting to murder in 1988. He was a sitting MP then, so, out of
moral grounds he resigned from his post.
This case attracted flak for a flawed reasoning in the SC judgement. The judgement had a lot of weak reasoning and
clearly showed prejudice towards Sidhu’s status as a well-known person in the country. In fact, praising him, saying
that ‘he could have gone on an appeal and retained his seat under sec. 8(4) of the RPA Act instead of resigning but did
not do so’ showed clearly the double standards that our judiciary holds! He went ahead and contested elections from
the Amritsar constituency soon after and ended up winning the election. Unfortunately the proceedings and the way
in which the media portrays such incidents, we actually forget the fundamental issue and our thoughts digress
towards something not so significant. Nobody remembers that a youth in this particular case was actually killed
because of a blow (according to medical evidence) and the person causing this death is let off on bail, and then ends
up contesting and winning elections! A sad reality that we have witnessed, portraying that there is first amongst
equals as well.
Sanjay Dutt - the actor who also happens to be the son of a famous actor turned politician.
When one thinks about celebrities and crime, an incident that instantly comes to one’s mind is the infamous case of
the 1993 Mumbai blasts case. The very case that turned out to be a nightmare for Sanjay Dutt. One of the most
destructive assaults that was premeditated and executed by Dawood Ibrahim in our country. Sanjay Dutt was
booked under TADA for having AK-56 rifles in his possession. He was charged under Arms Act and not TADA. The
reason being, he could be granted a bail if he confessed. And he did confess that the rifles were in his possession for
self- defence and nothing else. But the point is that it is rifles like AK-56 we are talking about here and not any
revolver or other weapons that people commonly possess for self-defence.
Bias til ]B