The Supreme Court on Friday, 25 February, sought a response from Punjab Congress chief Navjot Singh Sidhu on a plea – filed by the kin of a person who died in a road accident in 1988 – which stated that he should be punished for an offence of a more serious category than 'causing hurt'.
Sidhu had urged the apex court not to punish him with a jail term in the 1988 road rage case, in which he was let off the hook with a meagre fine of Rs 1,000.
Senior advocate Siddharth Luthra, representing deceased Gurnam Singh's family, submitted that he had moved an application seeking an enlargement of the scope of the notice issued. Luthra contended before a bench comprising Justices AM Khanwilkar and SK Kaul that a blow was delivered on the victim, and the verdict based on death due to cardiac arrest was not correct.
The bench asked, "You are asking for a review, then you are also asking for a whole review of the judgment...you want us to re-appreciate the evidence?"
The bench told Luthra that he could not keep expanding the scope of the notice. Senior advocate P Chidambaram, representing Sidhu, contended that to review the judgment after four years in respect of the incident, which took place in 1988, especially if the notice has been restricted, the scope of review should not be enlarged.
Citing the apex court judgment, Chidambaram added that the court had come to a conclusion after analysing the evidence, and it was not a case where his client had caused the death of the deceased.
The bench clarified that notice was issued on circulation and not after hearing the parties. Chidambaram opposed any further examination of the evidence against his client, contending that the scope of the review petition was very limited. After hearing arguments, the top court sought a response from Sidhu and posted the matter for further hearing after two weeks.
The top court was hearing a review petition against its 2018 verdict which reduced the sentence of Sidhu to Rs 1,000 fine from three-year imprisonment in a road rage incident in which a person had died.
(At The Quint, we question everything. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member today.)