1988 road rage case | Navjot Singh Sidhu urges Supreme Court to consider his ‘impeccable’ career as cricketer, politician

Punjab Congress leader files affidavit after top court decides to review judgment.

Punjab Congress leader Navjot Singh Sidhu has urged the Supreme Court to weigh in his “impeccable” record in politics and cricket while reviewing a judgment that let him off with a ₹1,000 fine in a fatal road rage incident dating back to 1988. Mr. Sidhu, represented by senior advocate P. Chidambaram and advocate A. Karthik, was responding to a decision by the top court to review its May 15, 2018, verdict. The judgment had found Mr. Sidhu guilty of causing ‘voluntary hurt’ but let him go by paying the fine. The Punjab Congress chief argued that the 2018 judgment was arrived at after considering every aspect of the case, including medical evidence, with “great care and detail.” The court’s decision to punish him with a fine of ₹1,000 to “meet the ends of justice” was arrived at after taking into account the fact that a lot of time had elapsed from the date of the incident; that no recovery of any weapon was made; no enmity was found between Mr. Sidhu and Gurnam Singh, the man who died in the incident; and the former cricketer-turned-politician’s antecedents. “The respondent [Sidhu] has had an impeccable political and sporting career in the last three decades. He has had an active public life with an impeccable record as a parliamentarian wherein he has worked for the welfare of not only the citizens of his constituency but also the public at large,” the affidavit filed by Mr. Sidhu said. He also drew the court’s attention to his “various philanthropic contributions towards social welfare by helping those in need of immediate financial assistance and by contributing to the development of environmental projects.” Mr. Sidhu said he has been a “law-abiding citizen and ought not to be punished any further.” He argued that no review could be entertained in criminal proceedings except on the grounds of an error apparent on the face of the record. The fetters on review proceedings in criminal matters were “iron-clad.” “The victims have to pinpoint the apparent error and judicial fallibility. They cannot use review merely as a tool to embark on a re-appreciation of evidence on record nor can it be entertained on grounds that an alternative view can be taken. If the view adopted by the court is a possible view, it cannot be contended that there is an error apparent on the face of the record,” the affidavit contended. The correctness of the court’s discretion to impose a sentence of fine could not be a ground to review the decision, it noted. A Special Bench led by Justice A.M. Khanwilkar is hearing the case later on Friday. Mr. Sidhu may face a prison sentence of one year if the court decides to swap the ₹1,000 fine for a jail term under Section 323 of the IPC.