In a hearing today (November 19), the Supreme Court proposed an amicable resolution to the dispute between Justice (Retd) Ranjit Singh and former Shiromani Akali Dal (SAD) chief Sukhbir Singh Badal and former Punjab MLA Bikram Singh Majithia. The case involves allegations of defamation and bringing disrepute to the Commission of Inquiry headed by Justice Singh to investigate sacrilege incidents in Punjab.
SC’s Observations and Suggestions
A bench comprising Justices MM Sundresh and Aravind Kumar encouraged both sides to explore reconciliation. Senior Advocate Puneet Bali, representing the respondents, was asked to seek instructions on whether Badal and Majithia could express remorse to Justice Singh. Similarly, Senior Advocate Nidhesh Gupta, appearing for Justice Singh, was requested to ascertain if an apology or expression of regret would suffice.
Justice Sundresh remarked:
“The only way [forward]…if you could express regret to him…find out in two weeks, persuade him…it does not look nice…you are a former Deputy CM, [and] he is a former judge.”
Justice Kumar added:
“Expressing remorse will place you [respondents] on a higher pedestal.”
The bench emphasized the importance of moving on, stating:
“The higher you go up, the egos also rise…People at the bottom, they are more flexible in moving on…The high offices you held…just ignore it and keep moving.”
Background of the Case
Justice Ranjit Singh led a Commission formed by former Punjab CM Amarinder Singh to probe incidents of sacrilege and related police firings in Punjab between 2015 and 2017. The Commission’s report implicated Dera Sacha Sauda for sacrilege and SAD patron Parkash Singh Badal for police action against anti-sacrilege protesters.
In August 2018, Sukhbir Singh Badal, during a press conference, accused Justice Singh of fabricating witness statements in the report and alleged that he lacked legal qualifications. Shortly after, Majithia and other SAD leaders mocked the Commission’s findings during a protest outside the Punjab Assembly.
Justice Singh subsequently filed a criminal complaint under Section 10A of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, accusing Badal and Majithia of defamatory conduct aimed at discrediting him and the Commission.
Key Legal Contentions
Maintainability: Badal and Majithia argued that Justice Singh’s complaint was invalid as it was filed after the Commission ceased to exist. They further claimed that his affidavits failed to disclose this fact.
Justice Singh’s Response: The retired judge maintained that the defamatory statements targeted him personally and undermined the credibility of the Commission’s work.
In November 2019, the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed Justice Singh’s complaint on grounds of maintainability. Justice Singh challenged this decision in the Supreme Court, which issued notices to the respondents in January 2020.
SC Hearing Highlights
Gupta sought to show the Court statements made by the respondents, but Justice Sundresh advised against revisiting past disputes.
Bali contended that Justice Singh displayed inappropriate conduct during High Court proceedings, including allegations against the Single Judge who dismissed his complaint.
The bench noted the matter’s emotional undertones and urged both sides to adopt a practical approach:
“Why your personal appearance required…not in good taste…[it] does not require complicated understanding.”
Section 10A of the Act
The provision penalizes acts or statements aimed at discrediting a Commission or its members, with penalties including imprisonment of up to six months or a fine.
Next Steps
The Court adjourned the matter for two weeks, allowing the counsels to discuss potential reconciliation. The suggestion for an apology or expression of remorse remains central to resolving the issue amicably.
Case Title: Justice (Retired) Ranjit Singh v. Sukhbir Singh Badal & Anr., Crl.A. No. 1982/2019
Lawcutor 