Author: Sandhya Jain
Publication: Niticentral.com
Date: October 23, 2013
URL: http://www.niticentral.com/2013/10/23/congress-protects-convicted-cronies-149631.html

In a staggering, unprecedented mockery of the tenets of justice as understood by ordinary citizens, the Union Home Ministry (read Congress party leadership) has officially sought the opinion of the Maharashtra Government regarding reducing the sentence of actor Sanjay Dutt, who was found guilty of association with underworld criminals responsible for the 1993 Mumbai blasts. Over 250 people died in the serial blasts. The move suggests that the Congress party may seek a Presidential pardon for Dutt, in order to cash in on his popularity in the forthcoming general election of 2014.

The case dragged for twenty years before Dutt was finally awarded six years simple imprisonment, thanks to judicial leniency which put his case outside the purview of the draconian Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, where the sentence would automatically be higher. The Supreme Court reduced this to five years in March 2013, and after his appeals were exhausted, he finally went to jail in May 2013. As he had already served 18 months prison time before receiving bail in the case, he had a mere 42 months sentence left to serve.

Sanjay Dutt is a Congress party heir. His father late Sunil Dutt was a party MP, mother late Nargis Dutt was sent to the Rajya Sabha by the Nehru government and his sister Priya Dutt is a sitting Congress MP. As such, even before sentence was finally pronounced in his case, there was talk among loyalists about approaching the Governor or the President to grant him reprieve for his ‘youthful misdemeanor’ (buying AK-47 rifles and other arms and ammunition from the perpetrators of the Mumbai blasts). As this drew strong reaction in the families of the victims of the serial blasts, Dutt surrendered in June.

Just over three months later, from October 1, he was granted a 14-day parole, ostensibly for medical treatment, though for unstated causes, which was extended before expiry by another 14 days. This triggered strong reactions about the preferential treatment accorded to scions of political families, most notably Manu Sharma of Jessica Lal murder case and Vikas Yadav of the Nitish Katara murder case.

Recently, it came to light that Sanjay Dutt’s wife, Maanyata Dutt, was partying at a private residence in Marine Drive just two days before his parole extension was granted. Amidst reports that Dutt was selectively socialising with a few well-connected friends, it was difficult to confirm if the actor himself attended the gathering where several bureaucrats, police officers and politicians were present, and whose careers could be adversely affected should it transpire that Sanjay Dutt attended the party.

What is known is that the Union Home Ministry has written to the State Government, ostensibly as a follow-up of Justice Markandey Katju’s appeal to the President, seeking reduction in Dutt’s sentence.

The twist in the Sanjay Dutt case comes close on the heels of a judicial reprieve to former Union Minister for Urban Development, Sheila Kaul, which has deferred framing of charges in the 1996 Housing Scam. The 98-year old Sheila Kaul, maternal aunt of former Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, sought to be excused from the trial on grounds of poor mental and physical health. Special CBI judge Pradeep Chaddah has asked the Director of All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) to constitute a board of senior doctors to examine her mental condition and give an opinion whether Kaul can understand the court proceedings.

Previously, in February, the court had decided to frame charges against Kaul and her erstwhile additional private secretary Rajan Lala and private assistant RK Sharma, for allegedly allotting out-of-turn Government accommodation in Delhi for a consideration, between 1992 and 1995. The case moved at snail’s pace, and it was only in April 2003 that the CBI chargesheeted Kaul and her aides under section 120-B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code and for various other offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Kaul has resisted the framing of charges of various pretexts.

On October 8, 2013, a Supreme Court bench comprising Justice TS Thakur and Vikramjit Sen set aside the Delhi High Court order dismissing her plea challenging framing of charges against her. The Court had ordered Kaul to appear and answer the charges against her after AIIMS doctor SK Khandelwal reported that Kaul was capable of understanding questions put to her and giving appropriate answers although such questions may have to be repeated.

The Court had observed: “…. So it becomes very clear that accused Sheila Kaul is capable of understanding questions put to her and giving appropriate answers. Though, the questions might have to be repeated. Unfortunately for her, law does not prescribe any immunity for aged people. She might be quite old but, but there is no way out. Her absence has caused considerable delay and is holding up the trial. I, therefore, direct accused Sheila Kaul to appear in person in the Court on the next date of hearing. She may attend the Court in the same manner she visited AIIMS. She is to answer the charge to be framed against her and let the matter proceed.”

It may be recalled that the Supreme Court had in 1996 imposed a hefty fine Rs 60 lakh on Kaul while cancelling the allotment of 52 shops and kiosks under her discretionary quota, but the fine was quashed on appeal in 2002.

The case has languished on various grounds. Now, the Supreme Court has upheld Kaul’s plea that the High Court failed to examine the question whether the trial Court was justified in holding her capable of understanding questions that may be put to her and answering the same appropriately.

The trial Court had failed to record the “process of appreciation of material concerning the medical condition of the appellant and her alleged incapacity to make her defence”. Hence, the Apex Court ruled the order “unsustainable” and sent the matter back to the High Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law.

While it is true that the Supreme Court expressed no opinion as to whether Kaul ‘can be said to be of unsound mind within the meaning of Section 329 of the CrPC as also the question whether the provisions of Section 318 CrPC can be invoked in case the appellant cannot be said to be of unsound mind,’ it gave another three months to dispose this matter.