While going through the newspaper today morning, I came across a news item that says ‘ Supreme Court to hear review plea in Navjot Singh Sidhu assault case’. The review plea is being heard today. SC will hear a petition to reconsider the quantum of punishment for cricketer turned politician, who was let off in 2018 with a fine of Rs 1000 in a 1988 road rage case.
A bench of two justices, which issued a notice to Sidhu in September 2018, will consider the review petition filed by the family members of a Patiala resident who lost his life in the road rage accident. Sidhu had hit 65 year Gurnam Singh on the head during an argument over the parking of a car in December 1988. Gurnam Singh was declared dead on arrival by the hospital. Friends, I clearly recall after the incident was reported by the media, Sidhu along with his friend, who was there with him at the time o the incident, was untraceable for a number of days. When the issue did not die, they surrendered to police and later they were released on bail, and the case of attempted murder was filed against Sidhu.
In the trial court, Sidhu’s lawyers took a stand that Gurnam Singh died due to a heart attack and not due to assault. In September 1999 Sidhu was acquitted by the trial court but this judgment was reversed by High Court in December 2006. The HC held Sidhu and co-accused RS Sandhu guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. They challenged this in the SC, which held that Sidhu was wrongly convicted of culpable homicide. In its 2018 verdict, the top court reasoned that the case was 30 years old, and there was no post enmity between the accused and the victim. The SC acquitted Sidhu and his friend of the grave charges but held them guilty of the minor offence of causing hurt under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code.
Under Section 323, Sidhu was sentenced to a fine of Rs 1000. The maximum punishment under Section 323 (Voluntarily causing hurt) of the IPC is a jail term of one year or a fine of Rs 1000.
The outcome of the review petition, however, is unlikely to impact Sidhu’s political career because, under the Representation of the People Act, it is only a jail term of two years or more that can lead to disqualification of a sitting MP or an MLA. Therefore, even if Sidhu gets the maximum jail term under the current charge, he would not be disqualified from holding his office, if he was re-elected as an MLA in the upcoming assembly poll in Punjab. Sidhu is a sitting MLA from Amritsar East seat and has filed his nomination papers from the same seat.
The SC had on 12th September 2018 agreed to consider a petition seeking review of its 15th May 2018 order, imposing a fine of Rs 1000.
Review petitions are generally heard “In Chamber” and not in open courts by a procedure called “ hearing by circulation” where advocates representing the parties are not allowed to argue. But in exceptional cases like this, the court allows open court hearing if convinced about its need.”
In my opinion, this is one case where a celebrity has used all loopholes and delaying tactics in the law to delay the justice, and when there is a delay in giving final judgment then the court takes a lenient view, citing that so many years have been passed and give minimum or token punishment, and it happened in this case also. An incident which happened in 1988, its trial court judgment came in 1999, more than 10 years later. Then the matter went to HC, and it gave judgment in 2006, after 7 years. Then after 12 years in 2008 SC gives its judgment, and now after more than 3 years, SC is hearing a review petition. So after 33 years, this case might close.
So Friends, what are your views on this matter.
Anil Malik
Mumbai, India
3rd February 2022