SC issues notice to Badal, Majithia on Justice Ranjit Singh plea

Tribune News Service
New Delhi, January 13

Advertisement

The Supreme Court on Monday issued notices to Shiromani Akali Dal leaders Sukhbir Singh Badal and Bikram Singh Majithia on a petition filed by Justice (Retd) Ranjit Singh challenging a Punjab and Haryana High Court verdict dismissing his complaint accusing them of they brought him and his commission on sacrilege issue into disrepute.

“Issue notice,” said a Bench of Justice Rohinton F Nariman and Justice S Ravindra Bhat, asking Badal and Majithia to respond to Justice Singh’s petition after senior counsel KV Vishvanathan and advocate Sudhir Walia questioned the legality of the high court’s verdict.

In his petition, Justice Singh has challenged the November 8 verdict of the high court dismissing his complaint under Section 10A of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952. Justice Singh—who headed a Commission that inquired into various incidents of sacrilege of various religious Granths which took place in the State of Punjab between June, 2015 and March, 2017—alleged that the two SAD leaders spoke about the Commission in “a very derogatory, defamatory and disrespectful manner” bringing the Commission and its Chairman into disrepute, which is an offence under 10A of the Act.

According to Section 10A (1) of the Act: “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”.

But on his last working day, Justice Amit Rawal of the Punjan and Hayrana High Court dismissed Justice Singh’s complaint after hearing arguments on its maintainability.

Justice Rawal’s order came almost a week after Justice Singh approached the high court with a plea against the pronouncement of judgment in the matter on the ground that the judge was under transfer and the order was reserved even though arguments by his counsel were yet to conclude. The Registry had, however, refused to accept his plea.

“Propriety demands that once the Appellant had expressed his apprehension at the mode and manner in which the concerned Judge was proceeding with the matter before the Court—the concerned Judge, who was under transfer, should have recused from the matter rather than showing undue haste in deciding the same,” Justice Singh submitted in his petition.

A controversy of sorts had earlier broken after Justice Ranjit had objected to the way his case was being handled by the high court, In an SMS to the then Acting Chief Justice, Justice Ranjit had asserted: “The 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 the Acting Chief Justice to take appropriate action considered necessary in the case, where a former Judge is before the court to save the honour and prestige of the institution”.

Senior advocate Puneet Bali had earlier argued on a respondent’s behalf that the complaint could have been filed only by a commission member or chairman. But Justice Ranjit had ceased to be a commission member when he filed the complaint. Justice Ranjit’s counsel argued that the stage for raising objections on maintainability was over. The high court had expressed satisfaction and issued summons to the two after taking cognisance of the offence.