The Bench was hearing the State of Punjab’s appeal against a March verdict by the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which imposed a stay on proceedings against Singh in the three sacrilege cases. The matter arose as a result of multiple incidences in Bargari, Faridkot district, where the scripture of the sacred book Guru Granth Sahib was allegedly desecrated and went missing.
In February of last year, the Supreme Court moved the trial of Singh and seven Dera Sacha Sauda followers in three sacrilege cases from Faridkot to Chandigarh. The decision occurred when Dera devotee Pardeep Singh Kataria, who is charged in the case, was shot dead.
Singh filed a High Court petition in December 2021, requesting that the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) continue its investigation into three sacrilege FIRs filed in 2015. Advocate General (AG) Gurminder Singh, along with Advocates Vivek Jain and Rajat Bharadwaj, represented the state of Punjab while Sonia Mathur, a senior advocate, appeared for Singh.
During the Supreme Court hearing, Senior Advocate Sonia Mathur, representing the respondent(s), contended that the High Court had simply followed the alternative prayer filed by the State of Punjab. She highlighted that the issue consists of two groups of cases: one involving police shootings and the other involving sacrilege. She further stated that due to differing views on the subject, the High Court referred the case to a larger bench.
Mathur went on to say that the matter is set to be heard by the Division Bench today and would have been resolved by now if the state had not sought adjournments. Mathur’s submission was contested by the Punjab AG, who stated that the notification covered all cases. The bench ultimately issued a notice and stayed the challenged ruling.
The controversy began on June 1, 2015, when the bir, or Saroop, a physical copy of the Guru Granth Sahib, was taken from a gurdwara in Burj Jawahar Singh Wala village, Faridkot district. On September 25th, several insulting posters were posted at Bargari and Burj Jawahar, and ripped pages of the Guru Granth Sahib were discovered strewn around the streets of Bargari on October 12th, that year.
In response to the sacrilege, a large throng was assembled at a site about 15 kilometres from Kotkapura. The police intervened early on October 14, leaving Ajit Singh with a bullet wound in his leg and others injured. Later that day, at nearby Behbal Kalan, police opened fire on protesters, killing Krishan Bhagwan Singh and Gurjit Singh.
Several members of the Sirsa-based Dera Sacha Sauda, including its leader Gurmeet Ram Rahim, were charged with sacrilege in all three incidents. Charge sheets were also filed in the Kotkapura and Behbal Kalan cases against a number of individuals, including the late former chief minister Parkash Singh Badal, the then-state home minister Sukhbir Singh Badal, the then-DGP of Punjab Police Sumedh Singh Saini, and the then-IG Paramraj Singh Umranangal.
Notably, Justice BR Gavai is the same authority who had stayed the criminal proceedings against Samajwadi Party leader Swami Prasad Maurya when he insulted the Hindu sacred book Ramcharitmanas. In January this year, the SC stayed proceedings against Maurya for insulting Shri Ramcharitmanas and inciting people to tear and burn pages of the Hindu epic. “Why are you so touchy about these things? It is a matter of interpretation. It is a line of thought. How is it an offense? He (Maurya) cannot be held responsible for burning of copies,” a bench of Justice BR Gavai and Sandeep Mehta had observed.
Additional advocate general (AAG) Sharan Dev Singh Thakur was informed by the Court that Maurya could in no way be held responsible for insulting the Hindu epic named the Ramcharitmanas.
An FIR was filed against Maurya and other Samajwadi Party members for making disparaging remarks about Tulsidas’ Ramcharitmanas. The FIR described a sense of public outrage and discomfort, with claims of leaders supporting the burning of the Ramcharitmanas books and using abusive language against its followers.
After analyzing the chargesheet and evidence, the Allahabad High Court concluded that there were adequate grounds for a prima facie case against Maurya. The court also then highlighted the importance of public authorities avoiding making statements or actions that could disrupt communal harmony.
