HC verdict on Sehajdhari voting rights case today

Chandigarh, December 19
The Punjab and Haryana High Court will on Tuesday deliver verdict on the Sehajdhari Sikhs voting rights issue.

A three-Judge Bench of the High Court is scheduled to pronounce the orders on a bunch of three petitions filed by the Sehajdhari Sikhs Federation and other petitioners.

They are seeking directions to the Union of India and other respondents for quashing the impugned notification issued in on October 8, 2003.

The notification debars Sehajdhari Sikhs from voting in the SGPC elections was issued.

HC rap for Punjab rights commission

Says SHRC only a recommendatory institution

Chandigarh, December 19
Finding fault with an order of the Punjab State Human Rights Commission against a DSP and two other police officials, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that the commission is only a recommendatory institution. It does not have the jurisdiction to reject defence version furnished by the police officers.
The ruling came on a petition filed by DSP Balwinder Singh, Barjinder Kumar and Sanjeev Kumar Goel against the State of Punjab and other respondents.
In the petition placed before the Bench of Justice MM Kumar and Justice Rajiv Narain Raina, challenge was thrown to the order dated November 12, 2009, passed by the Punjab State Human Rights Commission.
In its order, the Commission had rejected the defence pleas of the three police officers and recommended to the State Government to initiate department action against them. An interim compensation of Rs 25,000 was also recommended for Vishal Kumar, the victim of police harassment.
Challenging the order, counsel for the petitioner submitted: “Once the commission decides that the defence raised by the three petitioners was rejected, this would certainly prejudice their rights before the regular courts of law where they may have to face criminal or civil proceedings.” The counsel added the rest of the order was recommendatory and there could not be “any possible objection”.
After hearing the rival contentions, the Bench asserted that it was of the view that the submission made by the petitioner’s counsel on the offending portion of the order deserved to be accepted.
“Once the commission is found to be a recommendatory institution by the Division Bench of this court and the commission is only to act as a catalytic body, it would not have any jurisdiction to reject the defence version posed by the petitioner before the commission.”

“If such a course is adopted, it would amount to adjudication of the rights of the parties and their case before the regular courts might be prejudiced…. The following portion of the order is set aside: The commission rejects the defence pleas of the three police officers. The writ petitions are partly allowed. However, rest of the recommendations would stand”.

The rulebook

• The commission had rejected the defence pleas of the three police officers in a case
• It also recommended to the State Government to initiate departmental action against the trio
• The High Court, however, ruled that the commission did not have the jurisdiction to reject defence version as furnished by the police officials
• The ruling came on a petition filed by DSP Balwinder Singh, Barjinder Kumar and Sanjeev Kumar Goel against the State of Punjab and other respondents