Punjab and Haryana High Court’s Firm Stand Against Repeat Parole for Gurmeet Ram Rahim

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has once again made headlines as it barred the Haryana Government from further granting parole to Dera Sacha Sauda chief Gurmeet Ram Rahim. The decision came as a response to repeated instances of parole granted to the self-styled godman, who is serving a 20-year jail term for the rape of two women disciples.

Ram Rahim, a controversial figure, has been a subject of scrutiny regarding the frequency and duration of his parole. Despite being convicted and sentenced, he has managed to secure numerous paroles, raising questions about the impartiality of the justice system.

The High Court’s directive, issued by a division bench of Acting Chief Justice GS Sandhawalia and Justice Lapita Banerji, underscored the seriousness of the matter. The court explicitly ordered the Haryana Government not to consider Ram Rahim’s case for further parole without the court’s permission after his surrender on March 10.

The court’s decision reflects concerns over the repeated indulgence shown to Ram Rahim, particularly considering his criminal antecedents and the gravity of his offenses. The court highlighted the paradoxical situation where parole was granted even while legal proceedings challenging such actions were ongoing.

This move by the High Court follows a plea filed by the Shiromani Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee, which challenged the parole granted to Ram Rahim in 2023. The court’s intervention underscores the judiciary’s commitment to upholding the rule of law and ensuring accountability, especially in cases involving influential individuals.

The controversy surrounding parole extends beyond this specific case to encompass broader issues of justice and gender equality in India. The failure to arrest individuals accused of sexual harassment, such as Brij Bhusan Sharan Singh, despite testimonies from prominent female wrestlers including Sakshi Malik and Vinesh Phogat, underscores systemic challenges in addressing gender-based violence and ensuring accountability. Despite protests and legal complaints, the lack of action against influential figures accused of misconduct raises questions about the sincerity of efforts to protect women’s integrity and enforce the law impartially.

The juxtaposition of political affiliations and legal proceedings raises questions about the prioritization of electoral gains over justice and women’s rights. The failure to address allegations of sexual harassment against influential figures reflects a systemic failure to protect women’s integrity and hold perpetrators accountable.

In conclusion, the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s decision to restrict further parole for Gurmeet Ram Rahim is a significant step towards ensuring justice and upholding the principles of accountability. However, it also highlights systemic flaws and challenges in addressing gender-based violence and ensuring equality before the law.