Chandigarh, September 7
The Government may not have given a clear picture to parliament when it said “neither the Ministry of Law, nor the Ministry of Home Affairs, had given a vakalatnama to Harbhagwan Singh” in the Sehajdhari voting rights case.

The statement made by the Government, on the face of it, had given the impression that senior advocate Harbhagwan Singh was not authorised to appear before the Punjab and Haryana High Court for arguing the case as he had not been given a vakalatnama, though the “Ministry of Law and Justice had written a letter dated September 1, 2011, approving the engagement of Harbhagwan Singh in two of the three cases before the High Court”.

Investigations carried out by The Tribune now reveal that contrary to the initial impression apparently sought to be given by the Centre, Harbhagwan Singh had all the reasons to represent the Union of India before the Full Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case, as his engagement had received "approval of the competent authority". And, the former Advocate-General of Punjab was not wrong when he said he had been appointed to represent the Union of India in the matter.

Harbhagwan Singh had claimed that the notification debarring Sehajdhari Sikhs from exercising their voting rights had been withdrawn on the basis of telephonic instructions. Taking a note of this, the Full Bench had disposed of the case. The next day, the Union of India had clarified that the notification was still in force.

The investigations reveal that the “two of the three cases” mentioned in the Government’s statement are none else than the ones challenging the notification debarring the Sehajdhari Sikhs from exercising their voting rights in the SGPC elections; and were pending adjudication before the High Court when the controversy was raised.

In fact, the cases referred to by the Government are among the three petitions on the matter before the Full Bench of Justice M.M. Kumar, Justice Alok Singh and Justice Gurdev Singh.

The two petitions in which Harbhagwan Singh was engaged are: Harbans Singh Kandola versus the Union of India and others (CWP No 11841/2010); and Sehajdhari Sikh Federation versus the Union of India and others (CWP No 17771/ 2003).

He was not engaged to represent the Union of India in the third petition filed by Hans Raj (CWP No 14179 of 2010). But his non-engagement in the third petition is of no significant consequence, as all the three cases are identical, seeking similar directions for allowing Sehajdhari Sikhs to vote; and were being heard together by the Full Bench. These were disposed of by a common order, after the High Court was erroneously informed about the withdrawal of the notification.