Why go ballistic when someone seeks mercy for Sanjay Dutt?

The TV debates on whether the adorable Munnabhai should go back to prison or be given a reprieve have become stale. Both sides to the controversy are guilty of an overkill. The inescapable fact is that Sanjay Dutt has been held guilty under the Arms Act for illegal possession of a firearm. It is irrelevant whether such possession was malicious or innocent.

The charge that he had quietly got rid of other arms, which were in his possession, in time and with the collusion of certain powerful friends is also not germane. The guilty verdict of the apex court alone matters. It is final unless the court reverses the decision while doing a review or disposing of a curative petition.

Overreaction to a move to secure him a pardon from the head of State is however unfortunate. Every citizen has a right to take up the cause of a convict. Let us not stifle that right by bringing up the issue of equality before law. I am amused at this, because questioning any possible decision to forgive Dutt on grounds of unequal treatment of convicts presupposes that all our systems care for and uphold equality.

This is far from the case. Our criminal justice system, in particular, is notorious for treating people grossly differently. Both the judiciary and the police are deplorably guilty of this. How else do you explain that when a ruling party legislator, who is accused of a heinous crime, is hardly ever arrested and sent to jail, even temporarily? The infamous Raja Bhaiya is still at large, although the wife of a slain DSP cries foul that he is the real culprit.

Again, how else do former ministers, arraigned for corruption, go scot free once their party returns to power? Quite a few of them are let off by a pliable lower judiciary that cocks a snook at the higher courts. It is an accepted fact in this country that two sets of rules apply at the police station for the rich and the poor. When this is the sad state of affairs, how are we right in taking exception to the chorus that favours pardon for the actor?

Let us leave it to the president of India to decide the issue, devoid of emotions, if ever a pardon is sought. President Mukherjee is a shrewd person who will take into account all facts before he comes to a conclusion endorsing or differing with the executive recommendation —  I am not all that sure that the executive will be clinical in its approach. It is notorious for playing to the gallery. With elections round the corner, it will not do anything other than this. But I am confident President Mukherjee will not allow himself to be hoodwinked by any tendentious noting on the file that is put up to him.

The episode has acquired its high-profile dimension only because of the intervention of the former SC judge and current chairman of the Press Council of India Justice Markandeya Katju. He is a colourful personality with strong views on everything under the sun. While he was in the Madras high court, I am told he attracted a lot of attention through his acerbic statements. Whether he is headline-crazy, as some allege, is difficult to say. Also opinion is likely to be divided on whether he has committed impropriety by batting for the actor when he is holding a responsible position.

He himself doesn’t think so! The point is no one has alleged he is dishonest. In my view, this clinches the issue in an ambience that reeks of corruption. We need more Katjus not only to make our lives more interesting, but also to strengthen the case for dissent in a polity where sycophancy has become the sine qua non for success. But then he has to effectively respond to the not unjustified charge that most of his missiles are targeted towards those who are outside the establishment. Till he does this, his credibility will remain low.

The writer is a former director of the CBI, New Delhi.
The views expressed are personal