New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday asked Shiromani Akali Dal (SAD) leaders Sukhbir Singh Badal and Bikram Singh Majithia to express regret in connection with their statements against former judge Ranjit Singh. Singh had led a panel probing incidents of sacrilege and police firing in Punjab.
The matter came up before a bench comprising justices M M Sundresh and Aravind Kumar. The bench told Badal that expressing remorse will keep him at a higher pedestal, as he has been deputy chief minister of Punjab.
"You were deputy CM of Punjab and he is a former judge. You both have held higher positions in public life…”, said the bench.
Referring to the statements, the bench told senior advocate Puneet Bali, representing both Badal and Majithia, that it does not look nice. “The only way forward is that you should express remorse. Persuade him," said the bench.
Bali contended that he understands what is coming from the court and sought time to convey the message to his clients.
The bench also asked senior advocate Nidesh Gupta, appearing for the former judge, to convey the view of the court to him.
"We will only tell you that the higher you go, the ego will go up. You have to keep your ego aside…You have to move on…..You have held such higher offices in public life. Just ignore the statements and move on," the bench told Gupta.
The apex court was hearing an appeal of Justice (retd) Ranjit Singh challenging the dismissal of his plea by the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
The apex court gave two weeks’ time to both sides and asked Gupta to find out whether expressing remorse by Badal and Majithia on their statements was acceptable to the former judge.
Singh moved the apex court challenging the November 8, 2019 verdict of the high court dismissing his complaint under Section 10A of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952.
Justice Singh — who was entrusted to head a commission that inquired into various incidents of sacrilege in 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.
