Current Events

I Was Sued By a Holy Man

by HARDEEP SINGH

 

 

His Holiness Sant Baba Jeet Singh Ji Maharaj v. Eastern Media Group and Hardeep Singh

Often when I tell people I was sued by a ‘holy man', they think I have a rabid imagination.

In late 2007, I was sued in response to an article I wrote for a U.K.- based publication, the Sikh Times, entitled "Cult divides Sikh congregation in High Wycombe". The claimant wanted an apology coupled with a staggering £150,000 in damages.

In June 2010, sikhchic.com reported on my case in an article with the laudable headline, ‘Another Baba Bites The Dust'. The article highlighted my victory in the High Court in a landmark libel case, initiated by the ‘guru' of a deviational group known as the ‘Nirmal Sikh Faith' or ‘Nirmal Bhekh', led by a fellow with the laborious self-proclaimed title of ‘His Holiness Sant Baba Jeet Singh Ji Maharaj ‘... or, Jeet Singh for short.

In the article, I wrote about concerns over how the ‘Nirmal Sikh Faith' had deviated from mainstream Sikh doctrine and religion and how the purported leader of the group had laid claim to three gurdwaras in Britain (worth millions) - leading to political infighting fraught with unsavoury incidents and police intervention.

During one of the multiple incidents which required police intervention, two members of the congregation were hospitalized, one subsequently being awarded £2,000 in criminal injuries compensation in November 2009.

Although at first, the editor of the Sikh Times gave me the impression she wanted to defend the claim, the publication soon capitulated to the legal muscle of ‘his holiness', venturing into a compromise agreement with the claimant's solicitors. They issued an apology and printed subsequent accolades for the claimant, leaving me to run up a significant monthly legal bill, at the start of the recession.

Undeterred by the craven capitulation of the editor, I decided to fight on for my right to freedom of expression, notwithstanding the huge odds as a lone wolf defendant.

As the case wove its three year torturous route, I knew only too well that if I lost, I would incur the trauma of personal bankruptcy. ‘His holiness' had instructed Ford & Warren Solicitors in Leeds, a top-tier law firm which had, at one point, up to five solicitors and two barristers, one of whom was an esteemed QC (Queens Counsel). I faced the daunting prospect of complete financial ruin, but it was not just my personal integrity that depended on the outcome, but that of the community itself.

The alleged defamatory meanings complained off in 'His Holiness vs. Singh' went to the heart of the fundamental teachings of Sikhism itself.

This week, Cambridge University Press published the first academic case note on 'His Holiness vs. Singh', featuring it in the prestigious Ecclesiastical Law Journal. In their abstract, the authors touch on the issues in the case - defamation, justiciability and Sikh doctrine and religion - highlighting the incontrovertible separation between the Church and State.

They comment:

The claimant, who was based in India and claimed to be a Sikh leader, brought a defamation action against the author and publisher of an article in the Sikh Times which was said to be damaging to the claimant's reputation. The article alleged, inter alia, that the claimant was the leader of a cult who acted contrary to true Sikh teachings and that he falsely sought to pass himself off as a true heir to a Sikh saint and to profit personally from his position. The author sought a stay of the claim on the basis that it was non-justiciable as it required the court to rule upon matters of Sikh doctrine and practice, contrary to a consistent line of legal authority. In granting a stay, Eady J. relied upon the decision of 'Blake v. Associated Newspapers' [2003] EWHC 1960 (QB). He rejected the argument that the allegation that the claimant was an ‘impostor' was justiciable independently of any matters of Sikh doctrine or practice. He held that the issue of whether the claimant could fairly be described as an impostor could not be isolated and resolved without reference to such matters into which the civil courts should not trespass. [RA]1

The Judgement delivered on the 17th of May, 2010 by Mr. Justice Eady, one of the most senior judges in the land sets a legal precedent and arguably goes beyond what was espoused by Mr. Justice Gray in 'Blake vs. Associated Newspapers'. It unequivocally highlights that the courts are not in a position to regulate religious function or the determination of whether someone is morally or religiously fit to carry out the spiritual duties of their office.

How does 'His Holiness vs. Singh' differ from 'Blake vs. Associated Newspapers'?

In Blake, the claimant - ‘The Most Reverend Jonathan Clive Blake' - represented himself at hearings. The presiding Judge, Mr. Justice Gray, asserted that Blake had given oral pleadings in a ‘dignified and persuasive manner.' The claimant in my case was literally an ‘armchair litigant' and conducted the litigation whilst sitting in the idyllic comfort of his ‘dera' (abode) in Jalandhar, Punjab.

‘His Holiness Sant Baba Jeet Singh Maharaj ji' was also apparently illiterate, unable to read, write or speak the English language.

When trial came around the corner, the solicitors for the claimant applied for him to conduct evidence via video link (VCF) from India; they claimed he had ‘chronic backache' so was unable to attend the trial in person. They were successful in their application for the order.

This follows on from events in 2005, when the film director Roman Polanski won a video link application in a ruling in the House of Lords during his libel battle against the publishers of Vanity Fair, Conde Naste. The Law Lords ruled in his favour 3:2 promulgating that he should not be denied justice as a consequence of his fugitive status in America. Polanski eventually gave evidence to the courts via video link from a Paris hotel; if he had landed in Britain he would have faced immediate extradition to the U.S.

Furthermore, ‘His Holiness' has renewed his application for an oral hearing in the Court of Appeal after being refused permission in writing by Rt. Hon Lord Chief Justice Laws on the 30 July 2010. In the order, Lord Chief Justice Laws asserts: "I consider Eady J. was right for the reasons he gave".

It suffices to say that 'Blake vs. Associated Newspapers' didn't actually end up going to a fixed trial; the preliminary issues adjudicated by Mr. Justice Gray ‘stayed' the case on the technical knockout of justiciability. In my case the very same preliminary issue was decided upon on the first day of what would have otherwise been a ten day trial, adjudicated by Mr. Justice Eady.

So my nightmare continues for at least a few more months with a hearing scheduled in the Court of Appeal on the 22nd of October. During the week of my trial in May 2010, the Sikh 'clergy' were otherwise occupied by issuing stern warnings to model turned actress Mandira Bedi for the religious tattoo on the nape of her neck. The Times of India reported the headline: ‘Madira's tattoo leaves Akal Takht fuming'.

It's disappointing that a meagre tattoo takes priority over the broader issues which are poignantly illustrated by the case I have been doggedly fighting for the last few years, which strikes at the very heart of Sikh doctrine, polity, practice and tradition.

Footnote:
1  Ruth Arlow and Will Adam (2010). 'His Holiness Sant Baba Jeet Singh Ji Maharaj v Eastern Media Group and Singh'. Ecclesiastical Law Journal, 12 , p 411 doi:10.1017/S0956618X10000700

 

 

[Hardeep Singh is a freelance journalist and broadcaster, as well as the Press Secretary for the Network of Sikh Organisations, U.K.]

August 27, 2010

read other articles in Current Events