Actors Darshan, Pavithra back in jail: SC warns against special treatment, ‘however big a person may be’
Article 14 guarantees equality before law, mandates that all persons regardless of their popularity or privilege are equally subject to law, the SC underlined
Kannada actor-producer Darshan and other accused must not get any special treatment in jail, the Supreme Court pointedly said on Thursday, as it cancelled his bail in a murder case, leading to his arrest later in the day. Prime accused Pavithra Gowda's bail was cancelled, too, and she was arrested just before Darshan was.
“Article 14 guarantees equality before law and prohibits arbitrariness. It mandates that all persons regardless of their popularity or privilege are equally subject to law,” the SC said in the order, setting aside the bail granted by the high court in December 2024.
The case is about the abduction and murder of 33-year-old Renukaswamy, a fan of Darshan's who allegedly sent obscene messages to Gowda, Darshan's close friend, in 2024. Renukaswamy was reportedly angry with Gowda whom he held responsible for discord in Darshan's marriage at the time.
While ruling that the trial be expedited, the SC pulled up the Karnataka high court for having granted the bail in December last year.
That's when the SC also warned the state against any privileges in jail: “However big a person may be, he cannot be above the law.”
Also read | Darshan-Pavithra bail cancelled: Why is Supreme Court unhappy with Karnataka HC order?
It told the state officials: “The day we know that the accused are provided with special or 5 star jail facilities, the first thing will be to put the jail superintendent under suspension.”
On the HC's order that it overturned, the SC bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan said granting bail in such a serious case, without adequately considering its gravity and the interference with the trial, was an unwarranted exercise of discretion by the HC.
"The order fails to record any special or cogent reasons... Instead, it reflects a mechanical exercise of discretion formed by significant omission of legally relevant facts," the bench said.
The SC's cancellation order came on an appeal filed by the state government in January against the HC order.
