Punjab & Haryana HC retired judge cries foul over handling of case against Sukhbir, Majithia

Source: theprint.in

Chandigarh: Retired judge of Punjab and Haryana High Court Justice Ranjit Singh, who headed the one-man commission — set up to probe the infamous Bargari sacrilege case — has complained to chief justice of the High Court against a sitting judge for showing “undue haste” in hearing a complaint against deputy CM of Punjab Sukhbir Singh Badal and his brother-in-law Bikram Singh Majithia.

The complaint was lodged by Singh against Sukhbir and Majithia, who is also the former revenue minister, for “bringing disrepute to the commission”.

Singh sent a text message to acting Chief Justice Rajiv Sharma Thursday, objecting to the manner in which Justice Amit Rawal, who has been issued transfer orders to Kerala, heard the case out-of-turn Thursday and has chosen to take it up again Monday. 

“Judge is under transfer and is showing undue haste in dealing with the case. I apprehend that justice may suffer. I am bringing it to your notice as acting Chief Justice to take appropriate action considered necessary in the case where former judge of this court is before the court to save the honour and prestige of the institution,” read the SMS.

When contacted, Singh said there has been no response from the chief justice yet.

The 2015 sacrilege case 

Singh, who retired from the Punjab and Haryana High Court in 2013, headed the one-man commission set up by Chief Minister Captain Amarinder Singh-led Congress government in April 2017. The commission was asked to probe the incidents of sacrilege of Guru Granth Sahib — the holy book of Sikhs — and the killing of two Sikh youths protesting against the sacrilege in 2015 by police.

The commission submitted its two-part report last year, indicting the then chief minister Parkash Singh Badal for ordering the police firing, while suggesting the involvement of the Sirsa-based Dera Sacha Sauda supporters in the sacrilege.

The Akalis rubbished the findings of the report, which caused a political furore in the state. The Punjab assembly later passed a resolution to constitute a special investigation team (SIT) of Punjab police to probe the case.

Apart from Sukhbir, actor Akshay Kumar has been questioned by the SIT in the case.

Sukhbir, Majithia ‘questioned’ Singh’s Sikh identity

Early this year, Singh had filed a criminal complaint under section 10A of the Commission of Enquiry Act 1952, seeking to prosecute Sukhbir and Majithia for “maligning the commission”.

According to the complaint, Sukhbir and Majithia have made statements twice in August last year, bringing disrepute to the commission. They questioned the veracity of Singh’s law degree and also raised questions about him being a true Sikh, the complaint stated.

When the two leaders failed to appear on two consecutive hearings, justice Rawal issued bailable warrants against them in March this year. However later, he recalled the warrants and ordered to serve fresh notices instead. In July, the two appeared before the court and were granted bail on personal bonds.

“This judge is in a tearing hurry & wants to now hear the case on the question of maintainability of my complaint. How can the question of maintainability arise at a stage when he has already issued notices and summoned the accused?” Singh told ThePrint.

Meanwhile, on August 28 this year, the Supreme Court collegium comprising five senior-most judges headed by Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi decided to transfer Rawal “in the interest of better administration of justice”. Justice Rawal’s representation for reconsideration of his transfer was rejected by the collegium on 3 September. His transfer is yet to be notified by the Government of India.

Rawal could not be reached for comments. The story will be updated once he responds.

Majithia’s counsel questions HC for entertaining the complaint

Majithia’s counsel, senior advocate Puneet Bali, said he had questioned the high court for entertaining the complaint in the first place. 

“Justice Ranjit Singh’s complaint could not have been entertained by the court because when he filed it, he was no longer a member of the commission. The term of the commission ended on 31 August 2018 and the complaint was filed this year. Moreover, Justice Ranjit Singh ought to have personally appeared in the high court in support of his complaint. Since he no longer holds public office, he was not entitled to any exemption,” Bali said.

Singh’s complaint has caused a stir in the high court bar. 

Senior advocate Anupam Gupta said, “Justice Amit Rawal has betrayed grave judicial impropriety in hastening the hearing of such a politically-sensitive case while under transfer. There is no immediate urgency in deciding the question of maintainability of the commission’s complaint.”

“Justice Rawal’s transfer pursuant to the decision of the Supreme Court collegium is expected anytime now. Both prudence and ethics dictate that he should avoid any immediate decision in the case, one way or the other. His conduct in taking the case out of turn and fixing it on Monday for further arguments serves only to enhance the concerns reflected in the Supreme Court’s decision to transfer him,” Gupta said.