Are judicial proceedings in India more biased towards celebrities?

Must Read

The Right to Information and its Working of 15 years

On 12th October 2020, RTI finished fifteen years since its commencement. The question remains whether the legislation stands up to...

An Insight into Custodial Death in India

“The occurrence of Custodial deaths in the world’s greatest democracy has raised the eyebrows of every citizen and shaken...

Implications in Travel Insurance in Light of the COVID-19 Crisis

As the world, today is crippled by this once in a century pandemic and as of date more than...

Second-Round Effects of Rent Control Laws: The Argentine Case

Introduction In colonial India, a city had an issue with its cobra population, which was a problem clearly in need...

Why Are the Big Techs of Silicon Valley Accused of Anti-Competitive Behaviours?

The big tech giants of the Silicon Valley are facing major challenges with relation to their monopolistic powers after...

KSK announces Sanjay Kumar as a Partner for Pharma & Life Sciences Practice

New Partner for KSK's Pharma & Life Sciences Practice King Stubb & Kasiva recently announced that Mr Sanjay Kumar has...

Follow us

[mks_dropcap style=”letter” size=”52″ bg_color=”#ffffff” txt_color=”#dd3333″]A[/mks_dropcap]nswering ‘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 till date

A prejudice in the judicial proceedings can be seen right from the beginning of this case where many of those convicted were given harsher punishments for offences of lesser intensity than committed by the actor. Nearly a decade after the Mumbai blasts case, Sanjay Dutt was convicted in the year 2013 and he has already been granted parole thrice in just 3 months. Zaibunisa, who was also convicted of the crime but for a much lesser offence, was denied parole as it was considered that there were high chances for her to ‘abscond’. How is this even slightly possible when she is 70 years old and suffering from Alzheimer’s?

Sanjay Dutt has spent 118 days out of jail after being convicted either on parole or furlough between May 2013 and May 2014. Recently in the month of December, a 14-day furlough was granted to the actor and the reasons stated by him are not known exactly. The frequent requests from Sanjay Dutt to get a leave from jail has actually made the government to wake up and propose a change with respect to the prison rules as well so that no possibility arises for prison officials to use discretionary powers. The Bombay high court has questioned the government as to why such earnestness is being showed towards granting the actor’s requests and not of other convicts.

Such signs on behalf of the police and other concerned authorities are very harmful and bring down the belief amongst the citizens of the country in law and order.

Other stories as well

The list of celebrities who have gotten themselves involved in judicial proceedings is a lengthy one. From Salman Khan who is involved in a hit-and-run case from 2003 and the illegal black buck shooting incident that actor Saif Ali khan and few other actors are also entangled in to assault cases against many Bollywood stars, the study of whether the judiciary is biased towards celebrities can be studied pretty conclusively.

Biased judiciary is a fact!

Celebrities and the affluent personalities have life easier as compared to the commoners when it comes to getting away with offences that are unlawful in nature. Actors from the film industry seem to be treated like demi-gods.  The cases against them run into mind-bogglingly long timeframes that run into decades. This inordinate delay in justice delivery itself is proof that tactics are used to let these celebs remain free for as long as possible before a  verdict is given which if passed may lead to their conviction or the due punishment whichever is applicable.

Preferential treatment to celebs is a harsh truth – would they have not suffered a legal consequence in the usual manner by now if not for their being celebrities?

So the question is after all, is law really law, when we are talking of celebrities embroiled in legal issues?

Conclusion

Justice is something that should be rendered effectively, rationally and equitably. All citizens, poor or rich, influential or commoner must be held on a common platform and their actions judged through evidences. It is the judiciary who is duty-bound towards ensuring this. Ultimately, justice cannot be something that can be bought through money or power or status. The reality however seems different. Hence the answer to the title question will more accurately be answered with a ‘yes’.

Latest News

Madras High Court Observes Unexplained Delay in Procedural Safeguards, Quashes Detention Through Writ Petition

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus. The petitioner P. Lakshmi, called for records of the...

UK Court of Appeal Rules Home Department’s Deportation Policy of Immigrants Unlawful

Britain’s Court of Appeal quashed the Home Department’s deportation policy, declaring it unlawful; criticizing it for being too stringent on immigrants to comply with. Background The...

Inordinate and Unexplained Delay in Considering Representation by Government Renders Detention Order Illegal: Madras High Court

A Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was filed in the Madras High Court to declare the detention order of the husband of...

Privy Council Clarifies Approach To Winding up in “Deadlock” Cases in the Case of Chu v. Lau

The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council clarified several aspects of the law concerning just and equitable winding-up petitions, as well as shareholder disputes...

Madras High Court Directs Hospital To Submit Necessary Medical Reports to Authorization Committee for Approval of Kidney Transplant

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a Writ of Mandamus to K.G. Hospital, Coimbatore by P. Sankar & V. Sobana....

Punjab Woman Evokes Petition for Protection Fearing Honour Killing

In the case of Divya Mattu and another vs State of Punjab and others, the petitioner, Divya, fearing honour killing against her by her...

Punjab Woman Accuses Punjab Police of Keeping Husband in Illegal Custody and Framing Him in a False Case

In the case of Geeta v the State of Punjab, the petitioner evoked a writ petition of habeas corpus as she claimed that her...

Addition of Words as Prefixes or Suffixes Is an Infringement of a Registered Trademark: Delhi High Court

Justice Jayanth Nath allowed the Times Group to use its registered trademark “Newshour”, in the case of Bennett Coleman and Co. Ltd v. ARG Outlier...

Just Because the Deceased Did Not Have License, Does Not Imply He Was Negligent: Chhattisgarh High Court

In the case of Hemlal & Others v. Dayaram & Others, a Single Bench of Chhattisgarh High Court consisting of Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal annunciated various...

Hoardings Are Movable Property Under Section 2(3) of DMC Act Subject To the Twin Test: Delhi High Court

Delhi High Court in the case of Delhi International Airport v South Delhi Metropolitan Corporation discussed in detail the provision under Section 2(3) of the DMC...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -