Even before the nation could imbibe the magnitude of the Supreme Court’s verdict on March 21, 2013, which finally brought the curtain down on the Mumbai serial bomb blasts that took over 257 lives and left 713 injured on March 12, 1993, the irrepressible Chairman of the Press Council of India launched a campaign for special pardon for cinestar Sanjay Dutt.
The 1993 blasts – 13 coordinated strikes in a single day – were India’s first major brush with terrorism, matched in horror only by the November 2008 attack, also on Mumbai. But 1993 was also one of the finest moments of the Mumbai Police who cracked the case in just 36 hours and proved that it was the handiwork of the underworld led by Dawood Ibrahim.
Justice Katju, however, robbed former Mumbai Police Commissioner MN Singh of the glory he justly deserved and cheated the victims/families of the sense of closure they would have got if the verdict was followed by mature analysis of that tragic event. Unfortunately, the electronic media followed him and tilted the focus of the verdict on Sanjay Dutt, an irresponsible flop who ironically became a hit star while on bail during this long drawn case.
Justice Katju’s family, like that of Sanjay Dutt, belongs to the inner circle around late Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru. So he is battling for a member of a tight social circuit. This is an abuse of his status as Chairman of the Press Council of India, a body created to uphold the highest standards of ethics and accountability in the media. This office ensures Justice Katju the attention he craves for his half-baked ideas, which include a dangerous meddling with the judicial process itself.
As this is the second time he is interfering in sensitive judicial matters, the Government must restrain him or ask him to step down. According to reliable sources, Justice Katju was a serving judge in the Supreme Court when he wrote to the then Union Home Minister Shivraj Patil, asking the Government of India to pardon / release Pakistani doctor Mohammad Khalil Chisti, an accused in a murder case. He was subsequently released by the Supreme Court in December 2012.
Justice Katju was asked if a sitting judge writing to the Government, bypassing the judicial process, constituted a judicial impropriety. He did not reply to the email, either to confirm or deny the information, though he had corresponded freely on another issue, even giving his telephone numbers and address and welcoming dialogue!
As the Mumbai Governor K Sankarnarayanan, to whom Katju has written a full legal brief arguing for clemency, may take a call in the matter, we may mention some points. If Sanjay Dutt’s driver who transported the weapons got 10 years’ imprisonment, and the celebrity was awarded only five years, is that not leniency? If all accused were tried under TADA and Dutt was spared, is that not leniency?
Katju thinks it is not enough and points out that the Supreme Court, which found Sanjay Dutt guilty of possessing prohibited weapons without a licence, had the power under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 to release the actor on furnishing a bond. Since this was not done, he urges the Governor to grant pardon under Article 161 of the Constitution, where even minimum sentence can be waived.
The extenuating circumstances mooted by Katju include: the event happened 20 years ago, during which period Sanjay suffered a lot, having to go to Court often and take permission for foreign shootings! Further, Dutt has undergone 18 months imprisonment, has got married, and has two small children. His parents were famous people who did social work. Finally, Dutt revived the memory of Gandhi in a movie.
It might be instructive to see what the Supreme Court had to say in the matter (Sanjay Dutt (A-117) Vs. the State of Maharashtra, through CBI (STF), Bombay, Criminal Appeal No. 1060 of 2007). The bench comprising Justice P Sathasivam and Justice BS Chauhan, found that, “you all agreed to commit following illegal acts, namely, to commit terrorist acts with an intent to overawe the Government as by law established, to strike terror in the people, to alienate sections of the people and to adversely affect the harmony amongst different sections of the people, i.e. Hindus and Muslims by using bombs, dynamites, hand grenades and other explosive substances like RDX or inflammable substances or fire-arms like AK-56 rifles, carbines, pistols and other lethal weapons, in such a manner as to cause or as likely to cause death of or injuries to any person or persons…”
Under this criminal conspiracy, Dutt agreed to keep in his possession 3 AK-56 rifles and its ammunition, one 9mm pistol and its cartridges and hand grenades, unauthorisedly. These were part of the consignments smuggled into the country by Dawood Ibrahim Kaskar and his associates; this offence is punishable under Section 3(3) of TADA.
This crime was committed in Greater Bombay, specified as a Notified Area under Clause (f) of Sub Section (1) of Section 2 of TADA, and hence punishable under Section 5 of TADA. The arms and ammunitions were to aid terrorists and contravened provisions of the Arms Act, 1959 and Arms Rules, 1962, Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and Explosives Rules, 2008, punishable under Section 6 of TADA. The offence is also punishable under Sections 3 and 7 read with Sections 25(1- A) (1-B)(a) of the Arms Act, 1959.
The learned judges convicted Dutt only under the Arms Act, 1959 and acquitted him of all other offences. He was given only the minimum prescribed sentence of five years, of which he has already served 18 months. If Justice Katju thinks the punishment is severe, he is clearly applying the norm – show me the man and I’ll show you the law.
Such a person should not head an august body like the Press Council of India, where he can pervert media standards with impunity, provoking journalists to think and write on the basis of personal biases, ideologies, or infatuations.
NitiCentral.com, 22 March 2013
http://www.niticentral.com/2013/03/22/katjus-half-baked-defence-of-sanjay-dutt-58247.html