March 26, 2018 | By Sikh Siyasat Bureau
Chandigarh: Chief of Shiromani Akali Dal (Badal) and former chief minister Sukhbir Badal seems to have put himself in a fix, mainly due to his perpetuating adamant and non-cooperating attitude towards Justice Ranjit Singh commission pertaining to evidence in the beadbi (sacrilege) incidents of Shri Guru Granth Sahib that could have far reaching reverberation.
Punjab government appointed Justice Ranjit Singh Commission has maintained that Sukhbir Badal was either not having any information at all and has made a false and misleading statement or has attempted to withhold it. Further Justice Ranjit Singh made it clear that Sukhbir, in both situations, had exposed himself to rigours of Sections 176 and 177 of the IPC dealing with necessity of furnishing correct information.
The assertion came after Sukhbir raised “frivolous and motivated pleas without any basis” instead of sharing the information in response to repeated communications.
Apparently, in an order passed during the ongoing inquiry, Justice Ranjit Singh also reminded Sukhbir Badal of Section 5 (2) of the Commission of Inquiry Act, which says the panel has the power to ask any person to furnish information on points and matters considered relevant. The section makes it clear that the person is deemed to be legally bound to furnish true information or face action under the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
“The commission is of the view that either there is lack of responsibility on Sukhbir Badal’s behalf to share this information on misconceived pleas or he has made a wrong averment in the memorandum submitted by him to the Punjab Governor,” reads the statement of Justice Ranjit Singh published in The Tribune (TT).
Genesis of this matter lies in a memorandum submitted to the Punjab Governor where Sukhbir Badal had claimed that a deep-rooted conspiracy, having international ramifications, was behind the incidents of beadbi (sacrilege) of Shri Guru Granth Sahib.
On this statement of Sukhbir Badal, Justice Ranjit Singh had asked him to urgently share the details. To which he declined and “resolved not to reply”.