Supreme Court Asks Sukhbir Badal, Bikram Majithia To Consider Expressing Remorse For Remarks On Justice Ranjit Singh

On hearing Justice (Retd) Ranjit Singh's plea against ex-Shiromani Akali Dal chief Sukhbir Singh Badal and ex-Punjab MLA Bikram Singh Majithia, for allegedly bringing disrepute to the Commission headed by him to probe incidents of sacrilege in Punjab, the Supreme Court today suggested that the parties attempt resolving the dispute amongst themselves.

A bench of Justices MM Sundresh and Aravind Kumar asked Senior Advocate Puneet Bali, appearing for respondents (Badal and Majithia), to take instructions as to whether they are inclined to express remorse to Justice Singh. Senior Advocate Nidhesh Gupta, appearing for Justice Singh, was asked on the other hand to find out if expression of such remorse/apology by the respondents is acceptable to the retired judge.

"only way [...] if you could express regret to him...find out in 2 weeks, persuade him...does not look nice...you are a former Deputy CM, [he is a former judge]...", said Justice Sundresh to Bali.

Justice Kumar communicated a similar sentiment, saying, "expressing remorse will place you [respondents] on a higher pedestal".

At one point, Gupta sought to show the Court the statements allegedly made by the respondents. Refusing to go into the same, Justice Sundresh said, "You have to move on. We will only tell you, the higher you go up, the egos also will also rise. The people at the bottom, they are more flexible in moving on...The high offices you held...just ignore it and keep moving...the High Court has got bigger issues to deal with."

During the hearing, while Gupta took the Court through Section 10A of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, Bali submitted that the High Court was not sure about maintainability of Justice Singh's complaint, considering that he was no longer heading the Commission. He further alleged that when arguments on maintainability were taken up by the High Court, Justice Singh started making allegations against the Single Judge and made a complaint to the High Court Chief Justice that his case was being heard out of turn.

Bali also made submissions questioning the conduct of Justice Singh and took the court through certain orders of the High Court. He further contended that the Act was required to be read "as it is". Hearing him, Justice Sundresh said to Gupta,

"You are a former judge of the High Court...why do you want to go to the High Court? Not for contesting your matter...why your personal appearance required...why do you want to go there...not in good taste...[it] does not require complicated understanding...what Section 10A says...he is a political personality... there is no room for emotions in this matter...".

Ultimately, the matter was adjourned for 2 weeks to enable the senior counsels to obtain instructions from their clients.

Briefly put, Justice Singh headed a Commission, set up by then Punjab CM Amarinder Singh, that inquired into various incidents of sacrilege (and police firing) which took place in the Punjab between June, 2015 and March, 2017. In its findings, the Commission held Dera Sacha Sauda (and its followers) responsible for theft and desecration of the Guru Granth Sahib from a gurdwara in Faridkot and putting up derogatory posters. The report further blamed SAD patron Parkash Singh Badal for police action on anti-sacrilege protestors.

In August, 2018, Badal alleged in a press conference that Justice Singh had no legal qualification and accused him of fabricating documents, including witness statements, in preparation of the Commission's report. Few days later, SAD leaders, including Majithia, held a demonstration outside the Punjab Assembly, where the Commission's report was allegedly mocked.

Following these incidents, Justice Singh filed a criminal complaint under Section 10A of the Act before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, accusing Badal and Majithia of making defamatory statements against him, in connection with the Commission's report.

In response, Badal and Majithia contended that a complaint under the Act was maintainable only if it was filed by a member of the Commission. However, the Commission had ceased to exist when the complaint was filed before the High Court by Justice Ranjit. They further submitted that affidavits filed by the retired judge were incorrect as they failed to disclose that he had ceased to be a member/chairman of the Commission.

On November 8, 2019, the High Court dismissed Justice Singh's complaint after hearing arguments on maintainability. Notably, the judge who presided over the case was under transfer at the time when the orders were reserved. Justice Singh filed a plea in relation to the same, opposing the undue haste in deciding of the case, but it was rejected.

Challenging the High Court's dismissal of his complaint, Justice Singh approached the Supreme Court which, in January, 2020, issued notices to Badal and Majithia.

For context, Section 10A of the Act deals with "Penalty for acts calculated to bring the Commission or any member thereof into disrepute". Sub-section (1) thereof stipulates:

"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."

Case Title: JUSTICE (RETIRED) RANJIT SINGH Versus SUKHBIR SINGH BADAL AND ANR., Crl.A. No. 1982/2019