At least 87 crore people of India between 15 and 65 years of age began reposing faith in the judiciary the day the Supreme Court sent Navjot Singh Sidhu to jail for homicide committed 34 years ago. Patiala native Siddhu, an adored Indian celebrity for having been a great cricket batsman, television anchor-artist and a maverick-grade politician across decades, had killed an elderly man in a fit of arrogant fury over a trivial issue. The Patiala boy got into first class international cricket in 1981. Incidentally, seven illustrious years into the game, on December 27, 1988, he and a close friend were seated in a car parked quite onto the passage space near the Sheranwala Gate Crossing in Patiala. A 65-year old Gurnam Singh, hurriedly on way to a bank, asked Sidhu to make way. Sidhu didn’t like the manner of being told to get aside; and a road rage incident ensued. Gurnam was beaten up by Sidhu to death. Naturally, being a big celebrity, he was marked by people committing the crime and was duly charged for murder but h eld ‘not guilty’ by the trial court in September 1999. Horrifically dissatisfied with the verdict, the victim’s nephew Jaswinder Singh, by way of an eyewitness to the crime, appealed to the Punjab and Haryana High Court which reversed the verdict of the trial court and held both the accused guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Sidhu and Sandhu were sent to jail for three years. In 2007, both appealed to the Supreme Court, which suspended the sentence and granted bail rather mindlessly. The suspended sentence enabled Sidhu to contest the Lok Sabha by-poll from Amritsar. Eventually, in 2018, a Bench headed by Justices Chalemeswar and Sanjay Kishan Kaul let the two off with a meagre fine of 1,000 rupees without any jail term, saying ‘there was no evidence to prove that the death was caused by the single blow’ dealt by Sidhu. The court further made clear that Sidhu did not use any weapon; so, he was not a murderer; the incident was only an accident. The complainants were shocked at the judgment and lost no time in filing a review plea. As if God descended on the shoulders of the adjudicating Justices AM Khanwilkar and SK Kaul; the court ruled conclusively that ‘the hand can also be used as a weapon by itself when it belonged to a boxer, wrestler, cricketer or an extremely physically fit person inflicting a blow.’ More significantly, the victim was a frail 65-year old defenceless person. So, Sidhu cannot say he did not know the effect of the blow and plead ignorance. In the given circumstances, if tempers were lost, the consequences of the loss of temper must also be borne. Thus, Sidhu was found guilty of the offence under Section 323 of the IPC for voluntarily causing extreme hurt. The apex court sentenced him to one-year rigorous imprisonment.
For the first time in many years, a truly guilty creature who escaped even the Supreme Court with a ‘not guilty’ kind of a verdict with only a miserably insignificant 1000-rupee fine for a grievous crime got nabbed down. The humane judges with penetrating minds went deep into the matter to give justice irrespective of the grandeur of status of the guilty. Upholders of the Constitution are rejoicing over the divine verdict. Celebrations are still on among the righteous communities in the legal world.
For the judiciary to be independent and impartial to serve the Constitutional goals, the judges need to act fairly, reasonably, free of any fear and favour. The judiciary stands between the citizen and the State as a rampart against misuse or abuse of power by the executive. The judiciary is essentially the interpreter of the Constitution, which is the mother book to show the way to all the functional domains of any sovereign state with a real good executive and legislature. The ultimate right to interpret and clarify the Constitution has been given to the Supreme Court, which thus is the sole protector of the will of the state. It is the guardian of the fundamental rights and freedoms of the people. To perform this particularly sensitive role, it exercises the power of judicial review. The Supreme Court has the power to determine the Constitutional validity of all laws. It can reject any such law which is held to be unconstitutional. The High Courts too are Constitutional courts with similar power.
The Indian judiciary acts as the guardian of fundamental rights and freedoms of the people. The people have the Right to Constitutional Remedies, under which they can seek the protection of courts for preventing a violation or for meeting any threat to their rights. The Supreme Court and the High Courts have the power to issue writs for this purpose. The judicial administration in India is organised and run in accordance with the rules and orders of the Supreme Court. The courts are absolutely free to conduct open trials. The accused is also given full opportunity to defend himself. The state provides free legal aid to the accused for defence if he is poor and needy.
Under Public Interest Litigation system, the courts of law can initiate and enforce action for securing any significant public or general interest being adversely affected or likely to be affected by the action of any agency, public or private. Any citizen or group or voluntary organisation or even a court itself can bring to notice any case demanding action for protecting and satisfying a public interest. It provides for an easy, simple, speedier and less expensive system of providing judicial relief to the aggrieved public.
Justices Khanwilkar and Kaul will be occupying golden pages in chronicles of history for being truly judicious about a case initiated 34 years ago and buried as having been disposed of lawfully. Justices Khanwilkar and Kaul have not only made India proud but also have restored the eroded image of the judiciary. The people of India are heaving a sigh of relief.
