HC to examine if Punjab government can withdraw consent given for CBI probe in 2015 sacrilege cases

A larger bench of Punjab and Haryana high court will examine whether the Punjab government could have withdrawn consent given for the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe in the 2015 criminal case registered into three different incidents of sacrilege reported in Faridkot.
Besides, the court will also examine whether the state assembly could have directed the state government to \withdraw sacrilege cases from CBI, which were later probed by a Punjab Police special investigation team (SIT).
The constitution of a larger bench was recommended by a single judge bench of justice Vinod S Bhardwaj while acting on the plea from Dera Sacha Sauda head Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh, one of the accused in the case, challenging the government’s move.
Stay on further proceedings on FIRs
In addition to sending the questions to a larger bench, the single judge bench has also stayed further proceedings on the FIRs in question.
Ram Rahim had on December 13, 2021, moved HC demanding that the CBI be asked to continue with the probe.
The plea had challenged Punjab government’s September 6, 2018, notification vide which the consent given to the CBI to investigate the FIRs — which included the FIR registered on June 1, 2015, for theft of “bir”; on September 25, 2015 for anti-Sikh posters and on October 12, 2015, for sacrilege incidents reported in Bargari, all in Faridkot district — was withdrawn.
The Punjab Police SIT had named the Dera chief in the chargesheets filed in all three FIRs, claiming that the dera head had emerged as the “main conspirator”. The trial is underway at a special court in Chandigarh, having been transferred from Faridkot in February 2023 by the apex court.
After the sacrilege incidents in 2015, protests began in Kotkapura and Behbal Kalan. On October 14, 2015, two anti-sacrilege protesters were killed in Behbal Kalan in alleged police firing. Following this, the Shiromani Akali Dal (SAD)-Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government handed over the probe to the CBI. However, the Congress government in 2018 subsequently got a resolution passed in Vidhan Sabha, taking back cases from the CBI and handing it over to the SIT.
In the first round of litigation, a high court single judge bench had ruled in favour of the Punjab government decision. However, the bench of justice Bhardwaj observed that there is a divergence of opinion about the validity and sanctity of the government notification on withdrawal of consent based on a resolution passed by the state assembly. Hence, the matter was referred to the chief justice for the constitution of a larger bench.
The court observed that the Constitution recognises the doctrine of separation of powers as a basic structure.
“The doctrine mandates that the same person should not form more than one organ of the state and should not exercise the function of other organ of the state. While passing a resolution, by the legislative assembly, it has to be seen as to whether the same is within the competence of the state legislature as per the power conferred upon it by the Constitution,” the bench observed, adding that “an assembly route cannot be adopted” to do what the competent authority under constitution cannot do.
“While legislative may discuss an issue, highlight deficiencies, condemn certain aspects, it does not become the executive and take decision for the executive as well. Needless to mention that such authority to change the investigating agencies has often been deprecated in numerous precedents and even the constitutional courts are called upon not to steer the investigation,” it further said adding that exercise of such a power has to shouldered with rationality and not as a means of an “aggression reflecting constitutional overreach.”
Referring to the case at hand, the bench said the notification of withdrawal of case merely refers to the resolution passed by the Vidhan Sabha and does not reflect any decision making or consideration on the part of the competent authority.
“Apparently, there was no material available even before the state legislative assembly on the basis whereof the legislative assembly could be stated to be well-equipped to comment on the stage and the quality of investigation conducted by the Central Bureau of Investigation,” it remarked.