Munna bhai is not a habitual criminal but NO to Parliament – Supreme Court
Dacoits and murderers have made it to Parliament, but sanjay Dutt's hopes of entering parliament have been shattered because long long ago he made a juvenile mistake of owning a gun.
The subtle difference is there is no bar on people accused of crimes entering parliament but one convicted of a crime cannot. Fair enough.
The Supreme Court observed about Sanjay, “The petitioner is a well-known cine artist and because of his contribution to art and cinema he has got large number of fans throughout the country and abroad. His father was also a well-known film actor and he was deeply involved in politics. At one point of time, petitioner's father was Minister in the Union Cabinet. The petitioner is not a habitual criminal nor has it been brought to our notice that he had involved in any other criminal case. Despite all these favourable circumstances, we do not think that this is a fit case where conviction and sentence could be suspended so that the bar under Section 8(3) of the Representation of People Act, 1951 will not operate against the petitioner. Law prohibits any person who has been convicted of any offence and sentenced to imprisonment for not less than two years from contesting the election and such person shall be disqualified for a further period of six years since his release. In the face of such a provision, the power of the Court under Section 389 Cr.P.C . shall be exercised only under exceptional circumstances.”
But remember Supreme Court had permitted Navjot Singh Sidhu.
Why? The court explained,
“In that case, the petitioner was a sitting MP and he could have continued as an MP even after his conviction and sentence in view of Section 8(4) of the Representation of People Act, 1951. The petitioner Navjot Singh Sidhu resigned and expressed his desire to contest the election. In fact, that was a case where the trial court acquitted the petitioner and the High Court, in reversal, found the petitioner guilty. It was in those circumstances this Court granted stay of the order of conviction and sentence in that case. In the present case, no such circumstances are in favour of the petitioner.”