Source: theprint.in<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Chandigarh:<\/strong>\u00a0Retired judge of Punjab and Haryana High Court Justice Ranjit Singh, who headed the one-man commission \u2014 set up to probe the infamous\u00a0Bargari sacrilege case\u00a0\u2014 has complained to chief justice of the High Court against a sitting judge for showing \u201cundue haste\u201d in hearing a complaint against deputy CM of Punjab Sukhbir Singh Badal and his brother-in-law Bikram Singh Majithia.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The complaint was lodged by Singh against Sukhbir and Majithia, who is also the former revenue minister, for \u201cbringing disrepute to the commission\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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. <\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cJudge 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,\u201d read the SMS.<\/p>\n\n\n\n When contacted, Singh said there has been no response from the chief justice yet.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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 \u2014 the holy book of Sikhs \u2014 and the killing of two Sikh youths protesting against the sacrilege in 2015 by police.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The commission submitted its\u00a0two-part report\u00a0last 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Akalis rubbished the findings of the report, which caused a political furore in the state. The Punjab assembly later passed a resolution to\u00a0constitute a special investigation team\u00a0(SIT) of Punjab police to probe the case.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Apart from Sukhbir, actor Akshay Kumar has been\u00a0questioned by the SIT in the case.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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 \u201cmaligning the commission\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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\u2019s law degree and also raised questions about him being a true Sikh, the complaint stated.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThis 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?\u201d Singh told ThePrint.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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 \u201cin the interest of better administration of justice\u201d. Justice Rawal\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Rawal could not be reached for comments. The story will be updated once he responds.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Majithia\u2019s counsel, senior advocate Puneet Bali, said he had questioned the high court for entertaining the complaint in the first place. <\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cJustice Ranjit Singh\u2019s 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,\u201d Bali said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Singh\u2019s complaint has caused a stir in the high court bar. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Senior advocate Anupam Gupta said, \u201cJustice 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\u2019s complaint.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cJustice Rawal\u2019s 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\u2019s decision to transfer him,\u201d Gupta said.<\/p>\nThe 2015 sacrilege case <\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n
Sukhbir, Majithia \u2018questioned\u2019 Singh\u2019s Sikh identity<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n
Majithia\u2019s counsel questions HC for entertaining the complaint<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n