The Supreme Court has reserved its verdict on a review petition seeking modification of the sentence awarded to Navjot Singh Sidhu in the 34-year-old road rage case where he was earlier released with a fine of Rs 1,000. The petition was again filed in the Supreme Court by the victim’s family and sought stringent punishment to the former Punjab Congress chief.
Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for Navjot Singh Sidhu, said, “This is an extraordinary case in the negative sense, which should not be considered by this court as it is an abuse of process.”
Singhvi told the apex court that it was a 34-year-old incident that happened in 1988. Courts look into many cases for suspension of sentence, but this is one case where the Supreme Court has a detailed reasoned decision. A detailed reasoned order suspending the conviction by the Supreme Court is rare.” Justice SK Kaul, hearing the case, said, “But how is it relevant? The only limited issue before us is whether we should revisit that provision.” under which the punishment was imposed.
In response to the judge, Singhvi said, “So far five judges have given their opinion in this matter. Please note some of the points observed earlier by the judges in this matter. There was no personal enmity, no motive and no breach of bail. Sidhu had resigned. It is highly doubtful that the injury could have resulted in death. There was no dearth of cooperation at any level.
Singhvi argued that “this is a review review. Not a review petition. The notice was issued on a very limited aspect. Look at the painstaking effort made by the court in deciding the matter in the first place. Can’t see divided into sections, where every point has been considered.”
Abhishek Manu Singhvi presented the earlier decisions of the Supreme Court in detail before the court. “I have three main points as part of my submission,” he said.
“One, a punishment is the discretion of the court and there is no interference by the court except in the rarest of rare cases. Second, the court never interferes when there may be different views on a matter. Three, fine, as a punishment, is perfectly admissible without imprisonment.”