37 years ago, 5 Sikh hijackers owing allegiance to Dal Khalsa sought justice by hijacking a plane to Pakistan. Upon completion of their life term sentence, 2 of them returned to Punjab and India foisted a “waging war” case against them, 7 years after their arrival.   On 27 August, Judge Ajay Pandey will adjudicate on the law point of double jeopardy at Patiala House, New Delhi, which will make or break the faith of Sikhs in Indian jurisprudence, already under strain.

On August 27, 2018, it will be a litmus test for the Indian judicial system when Additional Sessions Judge Ajay Pandey will deliver a judgment in a 37-year-old-case of five Sikh Dal Khalsa political activists who peacefully, without threats or arms, hijacked a plane to Lahore, enroute from Delhi to Srinagar, to press their demand for release of Sikh savant, Sant Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale. After having served a life term in Pakistan, the key jurisdictional point would be the universally accepted concept of double jeopardy, recognised in Article 20(2) of the Indian constitution and Section 300 of CrPC.

Speaking exclusively to the WSN, lawyer for the accused, Harpreet Singh Hora said, “We expect the judge to throw out the prosecution case and our clients will be free. The evidence does not stand the rigours of the IPC, CRPC, the Indian constitution and Supreme Court judgments.”

The travesty of justice started began by the prosecution on 30 August 2012 separating the offence of hijacking from waging war and sedition in an attempt to bypass the doctrine of double jeopardy. The prosecution alleged that the hijackers raised “Khalistan Zindabad”, Sant Baba Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale Zindabad”, ‘Raj Karega Khalsa’ slogans during the  hijacking and that they belonged to Dal Khalsa which stood for independence of Punjab. The defense said that hijacking is a one-piece act and a fresh case by splitting the offence is a violation of principle of double jeopardy.

““We expect the judge to throw out the prosecution case and our clients will be free. The evidence does not stand the rigours of the IPC,RPC, the Indian constitution and Supreme Court judgments.””

Harpreet Singh Hora
Lawyer for the accused

Pleading on behalf of the aged accused, the defense pointed out that “the petitioners have already spent 35 years of their life in litigation and have already served one life sentence in Pakistan. The instant is a classic example of double jeopardy. Their entire life will go facing trial after trial for one set of circumstance. There should be an end to their agony. They were first tried for hijacking in Pakistan and sentenced.  They were discharged by an Indian court. It would be disastrous to change the denomination and try them again for the same incident under a different nomenclature. It is per se illegal.”

Harpreet Singh Hora, Counsel for the accusedCiting the Supreme Court judgement in the case of Balwant Singh and another versus the State of Punjab of 1 March 1995, the defense pointed out that merely shouting a few slogans a few times does not tantamount to sedition.  They also pointed out that the prosecution filed the supplementary charge sheet after more than two and a half decades of the incident which occurred in 1981 and there is no credible explanation of this inaction by the prosecution.

““We hope that the court will not add another clause to the long list of Sikh grievances. Justice must be seen to be done and any underhand judgement would boomerang on the Indian state’s relationship with the Sikhs.””

Kanwarpal Singh
Dal Khalsa spokesperson

Even a cursory look at the case will show that the government had given sanction to prosecute without application of mind, the grant of sanction was bad and the prosecution case must fail as held by the Calcutta High Court in Md. Yaqub And Aloke Biswas @ Bapi vs State Of West Bengal, 2004.

In the year 2001, a judge ordered re-investigation, even after knowing that Satnam Singh, who after reaching India had surrendered in court on August 9, 1999, and after arguments by ace lawyer Pran Nath Lekhi, had been discharged in the case by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Ms Sangeeta Dhingra Sehgal, on the very doctrine of double jeopardy on 11 February 2000.  

““We did what we did to uphold the need for justice for the community. We are political activists. We spent the prime of our life in prison. We hope true justice will prevail. Rest is up to Akalpurakh.””

Satnam Singh Paonta Sahib

Still, the Indian investigation agencies, sensationalised the whole issue and brought fresh charges of “waging war” against the petitioner Tejinder Pal Singh, who had sought clearance in the same manner as Satnam Singh had been given by the court.  After several adjournments, over a period of five years, on 8 January 2007 the trial court started proceedings and Magistrate Sameer Bajpai took cognisance of the offences under sections 121/121-A/124-A and 120-B of the IPC and issued non-bailable warrants against all five hijackers on 30 August 2012.  The High Court, instead of quashing the proceedings asked the accused to appear before the trial court of Ms. Jyoti Kler.

Presently, after proceedings for nearly a year, a judgement is expected in this historic long-drawn historic battle which would have deep repercussions legally as well as politically in the Punjab and the Sikh Diaspora which is already in the grip of a movement denouncing justice to Sikhs in India. Dal Khalsa spokesperson Kanwarpal Singh, commenting upon his expectations, said, “We hope that the court will not add another clause to the long list of Sikh grievances. Justice must be seen to be done and any underhand judgement would boomerang on the Indian state’s relationship with the Sikhs.”

For the record, 37 years ago on September 29, 1981, five Sikh activists of the Dal Khalsa -Gajinder Singh, Satnam Singh, Jasbir Singh, Karan Singh, and Tejinderpal Singh hijacked an Indian Airlines flight from New Delhi to Srinagar and forced landed in Lahore demanding the release of Sant Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale. After serving life imprisonment, Satnam Singh Paonta Sahib returned to India in November 1999 and Tejinder Pal Singh in December 1997.

The Sikh community is conscious of the verdict against Kehar Singh in the Indira Gandhi trial. Time and again, Sikhs have questioned the political establishment’s double standards as the Pandey hijackers were honoured with legislative representation in Uttar Pradesh by the Congress government and their cases withdrawn whereas Sikh hijackers Satnam Singh and Tejinder Pal Singh face retrial even after undergoing a prison terms.  Two different attitudes for the same offence smacks of a bias against Sikhs.

 If you like our stories, do follow WSN on Facebook.

Speaking for Tejinderpal Singh and himself, Satnam Singh has the last word. He told WSN, “We did what we did to uphold the need for justice for the community. We are political activists. We spent the prime of our life in prison. We hope true justice will prevail. Rest is up to Akalpurakh.”