Opinion - Editorials   

The sentencing of Sanjay Dutt

The sentencing of Sanjay Dutt to six years of rigorous imprisonment by the special court that tried the 1993 Mumbai serial blasts case is a landmark in more ways than one. The sentences served on him and three associates mark the end of a long drawn out case plagued by delays and seemingly vulnerable to all kinds of external pressure. Although the film star was convicted under the Arms Act 1959, the question of his sentencing became controversial with his seeking relief un der the Probation of Offenders Act 1958. Would the court take the unprecedented step of accepting his plea, thus sparing him the punishment mandated under the Arms Act — anything between five and 10 years in prison? The speculation that this might happen was a result of the perception that Mr. Dutt had been treated with kid gloves in this case. In 1995, a letter he wrote to the Supreme Court was treated as a petition. It resulted in Mr. Dutt, a detenu held under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Act (TADA), being granted bail. Last year, the special court held that those in the Sanjay Dutt group — the films star, who was in possession of arms and ammunition handed over by those who masterminded the terrorist explosions, and his friends who helped to destroy this evidence — were guilty not under TADA but only under the considerably less severe Arms Act.

In sentencing the actor to six years R.I., Judge P.D. Kode restored the balance with a firm hand. It would have been a travesty of justice had he extended the benefit of the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act to a celebrity given the serious nature of the offence. To have done so would have sat uneasily with his decision to reject similar pleas from several other accused. Mr. Dutt’s contention that he was in possession of the arms for self-defence lacked credibility. Why would anyone need to stash away three AK 56 assault rifles, hand grenades, and magazines to protect oneself? It is clear that Mr. Dutt had no foreknowledge of the conspiracy to bomb Mumbai. But to paint him as a totally naïve and misled innocent flies in the face of the facts — for instance, his 1993 meeting with gangster and fellow-accused Abu Salem and his acceptance of arms and ammunition on the instruction of Anees, Dawood Ibrahim’s brother. The surge of sympathy for the troubled film star is understandable. He is a fine actor and, as Mr. Kode observed when convicting him, he is “not a terrorist” involved in the conspiracy to carry out India’s worst ever terrorist attack. But it is important to remember that the law claims to be above all and makes no distinction between celebrity and commoner.

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Stories in this Section

The sentencing of Sanjay Dutt
Misgovernance personified
Rediscover the Presidency’s limits statecraft
The PLA turns 80 today
Shilpa gets on the wrong side of the media Out of London
Iraq: children hardest hit by humanitarian crisis
Brown’s contempt for democracy
Corrections and clarifications
Constitutional fraud
Haneef’s release
Jawans’ plight

Copyright © 2007, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu