Speaking out of turn

The Indian judicial tradition is that comment on the quality and nature of a judgment is freely permitted, provided motives are not attributed to the judge in question. Even allowing for that leeway, it is hard to explain the information and broadcasting minister's unusual comment on Sanjay Dutt's being sentenced to six years of rigorous imprisonment. Mr Dasmunsi is reported to have characterised Mr Dutt's acquisition of guns, including an AK-56, and attempts to destroy it, as an "unintentional" fault, though how you can acquire or destroy an assault rifle "unintentionally" remains a mystery. The minister is also reported to be deeply shocked at the sentence handed down, since he feels that the actor has suffered enough, and therefore deserves relief from the Supreme Court.

While eyebrows will be raised at these uncalled-for, and in fact improper, comments by a Cabinet minister who is also the spokesman of the government, they are of a piece with the build-up of a celebrity culture which comes close to celebrating a convict who has been tried and found guilty""as though the justice system is somehow at fault for not making a difference between an actor-criminal and other, lesser mortals. If there is to be equality before the law, and if the minimum sentence to be served by someone convicted of the offence that Mr Dutt has been, is five years, then there is no room for shock or disapproval of the judge's handling of the case""especially when no one is arguing that Mr Dutt is innocent of the crime for which he was tried. If anything, questions can be asked as to why the judge chose to exchange sympathetic banter with Mr Dutt, and indeed picking him out for special treatment by handing out the sentence on the very last day, after all other sentences in the blasts cases had been given. The media is as guilty as the minister. It is a strange set of double standards that allows people to express outrage at politically influential people nearly getting away with the murder of a waitress at a bar in Delhi, and at the manner in which the BMW road-killing case has been handled, and at the same time to make a song and dance when the system has the capacity to convict a leading film actor from a family with formidable political connections. Justice is not handed out on the basis of popularity contests""or we would not need to go through the messy business of trials for the shooting of protected animals like the black buck, and for driving drunk and running over and killing people sleeping on a Mumbai pavement. Whether Mr Dutt is a lovable if wayward character is not the point, and whether he has a fan following because of his films is irrelevant. Getting hold of an assault rifle, supplied by a feared Mumbai don, is not something that any system can take lightly, and anyone guilty of this should be dealt with as the law provides. That the system has done precisely that in the case of Mr Dutt is for it to pass an important test.