Stating that he has had “an impeccable political and sporting career in the last three decades”, Punjab Congress chief Navjot Singh Sidhu has urged the Supreme Court not to punish him with a jail term in a 1988 road rage case in which the cricketer-turned-politician was let off with a meager fine of ₹1,000.
Submitting his affidavit in response to a court notice issued in September 2018, Sidhu sought to highlight that he has worked for the welfare of not only the citizens of his constituency, but the public at large as a Parliamentarian.
“Further, the answering respondent (Sidhu) herein, through various philanthropic gestures has made contributions towards social welfare by helping those in need of immediate financial assistance and by contributing to the development of environmental projects. The above stated indisputable facts exhibit that the answering respondent has been a law-abiding citizen and ought not be punished any further,” the affidavit said.
A bench of justices AM Khanwilkar and Sanjay Kishan Kaul will take up the review petition demanding enhancement of Sidhu’s punishment on Friday. The bench had in September 2018 issued notice to Sidhu on the limited question of revisiting the quantum of punishment awarded to him by the top court in its May 2018 decision that held him guilty for causing hurt and directed payment of fine of ₹1,000. Sidhu was held guilty under Section 323 of Indian Penal Code (voluntary hurt) that entails a maximum jail term of one year or with a fine up to ₹1,000 or both.
The review petitions have been filed by the family members of 65-year-old Gurnam Singh, who died in the road rage incident involving Sidhu and his friend Rupinder Singh Sandhu.
Senior advocate Sidharth Luthra, who represented Gurnam Singh’s family, had requested the court on the last date of hearing on February 3 this year to consider expanding the scope of the review petition beyond the quantum of sentence.
In his affidavit, Sidhu has opposed any further examination of evidence against him, contending that the scope of a review petition is very limited, not requiring a court to go into appreciation of evidence at all.
“The Petitioner has urged this Hon’ble Court to undertake the exercise re-appreciating the entire evidence on record, which is permissible nor necessary, considering the impugned order has dealt with every aspect of the case, including the medical evidence, with great care and detail,” Sidhu said.
He added that more than three decades have passed since the date of the incident and that there were numerous cases in which the court considered fine as an adequate punishment if there has been a long passage of time from the date of offence.
“It is also relevant to point out that the answering respondent has had an impeccable political and sporting career in the last three decades,” Sidhu emphasised, adding he has always abided with all the directives of the court.
Sidhu is contesting the Punjab assembly election from Amritsar (East) seat where he faces former Punjab minister and Shiromani Akali Dal leader Bikram Singh Majithia.
(With inputs from agencies)