Punjab and Haryana HC to decide legal sanctity of 'hukmnama' on Sikh religion

CHANDIGARH: The Punjab and Haryana high court has observed that it would decide the legal sanctity of a 'hukmnama' or any other provision that bars any person from preaching Sikh religion. The HC has even appointed an amicus curiae and asked a senior advocate to assist the court in the matter.
Justice Sandeep Moudgil of the HC has passed these orders while granting anticipatory bail to a person who was booked by Amritsar police for claiming to be the incarnation of Guru Nanak Dev's soul. The allegations against the petitioner were that he is insulting Sikh community by misleading the people and hurting the religious sentiments, prestige, and honour of the Sikh religion.
Strongly opposing the bail plea, the counsel representing the complainant, Shiromani Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee (SGPC), said that as per the 'hukmnama', it is only the Guru Granth Sahib which is to be worshipped as sole Guru and nobody else.
The FIR has been lodged on this basis.
Hearing the parties, the HC observed that apart from the complaint there is no other material coming forth either from perusal of the FIR or any other subsequent investigation conducted by the state so far, as in the matter, which could be termed to say at this stage prima facie that any kind of insult has been caused to the feelings of the particular community either by way of spoken words, written words or gestures or any kind of conduct or by posting such material through social media.
Be that as it may, the question with regard to the legal sanctity of ‘hukmnama’ and any other provisions of law which bars any individual from preaching Sikh religion as a follower would amount to hurt or insult the sentiments and feelings of that particular community in any manner needs examination,” ordered the court in its order.
In its detailed orders, Justice Moudgil has also appointed advocate Baljinder Singh Sra as an amicus curiae to assist the court on the question. The court also clarified that Sra would be assisting the court in addition to Atul Lakhanpal, senior advocate, who is appearing on behalf of the petitioner.
Granting bail to the petitioner, the court observed, “It would be appropriate at this stage, since the court is prima facie of the view in its firm opinion that no offence under section 295-A of IPC is made out, and the petitioner is directed to be released on interim bail in case he joins the investigation”.
The matter has now been adjourned for May 4 for further hearing.