HC issues fresh notices to Sukhbir, Majithia on plea filed Justice Ranjit Singh

Tribune News Service
Chandigarh, March 25

The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Monday issued bailable warrants against Punjab’s former Deputy Chief Minister Sukhbir Singh Badal and MLA Bikram Singh Majithia, but recalled the order later, on a petition filed by Justice Ranjit Singh. 

A former Judge of the High Court, Justice Ranjit Singh had alleged attempts by the two to bring to disrepute a commission headed by him for probing the cases of sacrilege in the state.

Before parting with the order, Justice Amit Rawal directed the issuance of fresh notice to the two as per procedure prescribed under Section 204 of the CrPC. The order is being interpreted to mean that the two will now have to appear before the Bench on the next date of hearing.

Justice Rawal, during the course of hearing, observed that Majithia was not personally served. As per office report, his personal assistant jotted down the date. But there was no representation on his behalf. Justice Rawal also observed that notice issued to Sukhbir was received back with the report that some work was going on in the house and no one, as per the guard, was residing here.

Justice Rawal also took note of submission by Justice Ranjit Singh’s counsel APS Deol that the Court was empowered to issue warrant, in lieu of, or in addition, to summons. “… service upon the respondents be effected by way of bailable warrant through Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh as well as Amritsar,” Justice Rawal added.

Before parting with the case, Justice Rawal observed when the court was about to rise, its attention was drawn to the copy of the summons issued to Majithia with another title. “In my view, the particulars of the case were not correctly given on summons…. Since summons was sent by mentioning different case number and title, therefore, it is not a valid service,” Justice Rawal added. The official dealing with the matter was also directed to be careful in future after she appeared before the Bench and expressed remorse for the “inadvertence”.

Justice Ranjit Singh had moved the court for initiation of proceedings under Section 10A of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952. The provision deals with penalty for acts calculated to bring the commission or any of its members into disrepute.

If the first-of-its-kind plea is allowed, the respondents may find themselves facing proceedings for simple imprisonment for a term extending up to six months, or fine, or both. Section 10-A, among other things, say: “If any person, by words either spoken or intended to be read, makes or publishes any statement or does any other act, which is calculated to bring the Commission or any member thereof into disrepute, he shall be punishable with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both.”