Sukhdev Singh v Union Territory, Chandigarh, 1986: bail refused over a newspaper article

Who: Sukhdev Singh, who described himself as a journalist and the owner and consultant editor of the Chandigarh fortnightly Dignity; D.S. Gill, an advocate named on it as printer, publisher and editor; and a Full Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, Justices D.S. Tewatia, S.S. Dewan and M.M. Punchhi.

What: Dignity of 2 to 15 March 1986 reprinted an article, "A Dalit View of Punjab Scenario", by V.T. Rajshekar, first published in his Bangalore paper Dalit Voice. As the judges quoted it, the article said the Sikh masses stood behind Bhindranwale, that the men who had taken over Sri Harmandir Sahib were the Sikhs' true representatives, and that Beant Singh had avenged the humiliation of the Sikhs; it also said Dalits opposed Khalistan. Chandigarh Police registered a case on 12 March 1986 under sections 124-A and 153-A of the Indian Penal Code and section 4 of the "Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1985" (TADA), and arrested Sukhdev Singh. The Designated Court refused him bail on 15 March.

The petition went to a Full Bench, which decided it on 30 May 1986 (Criminal Misc. No. 1798-M of 1986). Justices Punchhi and Dewan, the majority, held that the person who really controls what a paper prints is its editor, whatever name is printed, so Sukhdev Singh could be charged. Read as an ordinary newspaper reader would read it, they held, the article extolled Bhindranwale and the men who held the complex, suggested that Sikhs treat them as their true representatives and prepare for Khalistan, and hailed Beant Singh's act, so it fell within "terrorist act" and "disruptive activity" under the Act. They took judicial notice of the Government's White Paper on what Bhindranwale stood for, and held that section 17(5) allows bail only if there are reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty and will not offend again. Bail was refused. Justice Tewatia dissented: the article advocated no "terrorist act", it did not question India's integrity and in fact opposed Khalistan, and predicting Khalistan was not an offence under the Act. He called the argument that praise of Bhindranwale and Beant Singh amounted to advocating violence "allowing the imagination to run riot", and would have granted bail on a bond of Rs 5,000.

Where: The Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh.

Why it mattered: Two of the three judges read a law aimed at violence to cover words on a page, in a case resting mainly on the article, and set a hard test for bail under it; the third found no offence at all. Gurmit Singh reprints the full judgment in History of Sikh Struggles.