Another instance of the judiciarys arbitrariness, where every citizens is NOT equal in the eyes of the law, is seen in how Supreme Court dealt with Navjyot Singh Sidhu. In 1988 Sidhu was accused of assaulting Gurnam Singh in a road-rage incident and causing his death -- attributed to heart-attack and/or a head injury sustained when Sidhu beat him and he fell. Sidhu was arrested by Punjab Police and spent several days lodged in a Patiala jail. In December 2006, Sidhu was found guilty and sentenced to a three-year prison term for culpable homicide. Following the sentencing, Sidhu (who was then a BJP Member of Parliament) resigned, and in January 2007, appealed to the Supreme Court. Supreme Court stayed his conviction and sentence, allowing him to contest and win the Amritsar Lok Sabha seat in February 2007. Seven years later, Sidhu is still scot-free. Because stayed means stayed until someone goes out of his way to get the stay vacated. Sidhu is clearly more important than other ordinary citizens, going from the circuitous and self-justificatory reasoning that Supreme Court used in the stay order. Read it here:
Posted on: Sun, 09 Mar 2014 08:35:26 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015