Sanjay Raut: In a division bench order on Monday, the Bombay High Court granted partial relief to Shiv Sena (UBT) leader Sanjay Raut accused of defamation by Medha Somaiya, wife of BJP leader Kirit Somaiya. Bail of ₹ 15,000 has been granted, along with permission to appeal within 30 days to assail conviction. This is the third case where Raut has been convicted for accusing the Somaiya couple of involving themselves in a ₹100 crore scam of toilet scam in Mira Bhayandar municipal area.
Sanjay Raut’s Reaction to Conviction
On his conviction, Shiv Sena UBT leader Sanjay Raut says “You can give me any amount of punishment, I have no problem. You read the court order, the court has not said that I have said anything wrong. The court has said that it is in public interest…No one has been punished. This entire justice system has become ‘Sanghi-fied’. Our Prime Minister goes to the Chief Justice’s house to eat laddus. The whole country sees this. Where will people like us who fight get justice, we will get punishment”
Post the judgment, Raut had lamented the judicial process and said, “You can give me any amount of punishment; I have no problem. The court has not said that I have said anything wrong. It is in public interest.” His statement mirrors a stronger critique of the judicial process because he argues that it has been compromised. He specifically spoke about the “Sanghi-fied” dispensation of justice, which he interprets to mean that political forces were sullying the court proceedings.
Grievances of Political Persecution
Elaborating on his grievances, Raut went on to say, “Individuals like me will get punishment in a system where the Prime Minister visits the Chief Justice’s residence to eat laddus.” His statements depict collusion between political power and the judiciary that is raising a relevant question about the Indian justice system. Conviction and subsequent remarks from Raut have opened wide doors for significant discussions over the intersections of politics, media, and justice in contemporary India as he approaches his appeal. Till then, Raut’s case would remain the sharp object at the tip of the wedge perpetuating the inevitable debate about accountability and transparency in governance.