The Supreme Court on Tuesday asked senior leaders from the Shiromani Akali Dal (SAD), Sukhbir Singh Badal and Bikram Singh Majithia, to express remorse for their remarks directed at former judge Ranjit Singh. Justice Ranjit Singh had led an inquiry into the sacrilege incidents and police actions in Punjab, and his handling of these sensitive issues led to criticisms from the SAD leaders.
The bench, composed of Justices M M Sundresh and Aravind Kumar, was deliberating on an appeal by Justice (retd) Ranjit Singh against the dismissal of his plea by the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The justices extended a period of two weeks for both parties to reconcile, emphasizing the importance of moving beyond personal grievances for public figures.
Justice Sundresh remarked to Badal, who has served as the Deputy Chief Minister of Punjab, that expressing remorse would elevate his stature, stating, “You were deputy CM of Punjab and he is a former judge. You both have held higher positions in public life. Just see the statements made. It does not look nice. The only way forward is that you should express remorse. Persuade him.”
Senior advocate Puneet Bali, representing Badal and Majithia, acknowledged the court’s perspective and requested additional time to discuss the matter with his clients. Meanwhile, Justice Kumar reiterated the sentiment of humility and moving forward, directing senior advocate Nidesh Gupta, representing Justice Singh, to convey similar advice to his client.
The court’s advice to both parties was clear: “The higher you go, the ego will go up. You have to keep your ego aside. You have to move on. People at the bottom are more flexible in moving on. You have held such higher offices in public life. Just ignore the statements and move on.”
Justice Singh’s original complaint stemmed from his role as the head of a commission set up by the Congress government in 2017, which investigated various sacrilege incidents and related police actions during the tenure of the previous SAD-BJP government. He argued that Badal and Majithia’s public statements were derogatory, defamatory, and disrespectful, potentially amounting to an offence under Section 10A of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952, which can lead to imprisonment or fines.
