The Supreme Court has dismissed a petition challenging the Haryana government’s repeated decisions to grant parole or furlough to Gurmeet Ram Rahim, the chief of Dera Sacha Sauda. The court emphasized that relief provided to an individual cannot be contested through a public interest litigation (PIL). However, it noted that if any specific rule or a High Court directive has been violated, such concerns can be addressed in the High Court itself.
Petition Filed by Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee
The petition was initiated by the Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee (SGPC), which objected to Ram Rahim’s frequent release from prison since 2022. Representing the controversial religious leader, senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi contended that the petition was politically motivated. In response, the petitioner’s counsel argued that since Ram Rahim identifies as a religious figure, the claim of political rivalry does not hold ground. Rohatgi countered by pointing out that the SGPC also considers itself a religious organization, questioning the validity of such a petition from its end.
Supreme Court’s Observations
Justices Bhushan Ramakrishna Gavai and Manoj Mishra highlighted that the High Court had previously ruled that the government could consider Ram Rahim’s parole requests in accordance with existing regulations. The petitioner’s lawyer argued that the leader’s release in 2023 violated this directive. However, the Supreme Court suggested that if such an order had indeed been breached, a contempt petition should be filed in the High Court against the state government rather than targeting an individual through a PIL.
Criminal Convictions and Controversies Surrounding Ram Rahim
Gurmeet Ram Rahim has been convicted of multiple serious offenses, including rape and murder. In 2017, he was sentenced to 20 years in prison for sexually assaulting two female followers. Additionally, in 2019, he, along with three others, was found guilty of the 2002 murder of journalist Ramchandra Chhatrapati and received a life sentence. Despite these convictions, the Haryana government has granted him parole or furlough on multiple occasions, raising concerns and prompting legal challenges.
The Supreme Court’s decision reinforces that legal remedies should be pursued through appropriate judicial channels rather than targeting an individual through a PIL.
