Punjab & Haryana High Court Stays Trial Against Singer Guru Randhawa Accused Of Defaming Jatt-Sikh Community In 'Sirra' Song
The Punjab and Haryana High Court in an interim order on Friday (March 20) stayed criminal proceedings against Punjabi singer and composer Guru Randhawa accused of defaming Jatt-Sikh community by using certain lyrics in his 2025 hit song "Sirra".
The petition states that the defamation complaint arises from a lyric in the Petitioner's song "Sirra," which states, "Jammeya nu gudti ch mildi afeem aa". The complainant alleges this defames the Jatt-Sikh community and insults the religious custom of "Gurthi." The plea states that complainant had contended that the lyric translates as “Sons of Jatts have been given opium as the first thing on birth”, which complainant alleges is defamatory, derogatory, and offensive to the Jatt-Sikh community, and amounts to a deliberate attempt to malign their honour, reputation, and dignity.
The petition however stated that prior to the complaint, Randhawa received a legal notice which he had replied to promptly denying any malicious intent, and assured the removal/revision of the lyric. The plea states that this assurance by Randhawa was acted upon by engaging with digital platforms to remove the content, demonstrating good faith.
Before the high court the counsel for Randhawa argued that the respondent had filed a complaint against the petitioner for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 299, 302(Insulting Religious Feelings), 196(Promoting Enmity), 356(1), 356(2) (Defamation) & 353 (Public Mischief) BNS. It was argued that without recording the preliminary evidence, trial court had issued notice to Randhawa, which is contrary to the scheme prescribed under Section 223 (Examination of complainant) BNSS.
Issuing notice to the respondents, Justice Surya Pratap Singh in his order said, "...In the meantime proceedings before the learned trial Court shall remain stayed".
The complainant has further alleged that the lyric distorts the sacred Sikh ritual of “Gurthi”, a ceremonial first nourishment prepared with sweetened water for a newborn, sometimes administered by a respected elder or a Granthi in accordance with the Sikh Rehat Maryada (Code of Conduct) and the teachings of Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji.
The complaint further alleges that the lyric portrays Jatt-Sikhs as narcotic consumers “from birth,” thereby lowering their image in the eyes of society.
Randhawa has argued that the trial court order issuing notice to him is bad in law as does not follow the procedure prescribed under Section 223 BNNS.
As per the provision a Magistrate having jurisdiction while taking cognizance of an offence on complaint shall examine upon oath the complainant and the witnesses present, if any, and the substance of such examination shall be reduced to writing and shall be signed by the complainant and the witnesses, and also by the Magistrate. The proviso states that provided that no cognizance of an offence shall be taken by the Magistrate without giving the accused an opportunity of being heard.
Randhawa has said that the word “shall” has been used twice in section 223 BNSS - both for examining the complainant and witnesses on oath as well as for recording the substance of such examination in writing and signing thereon. Therefore, there is no question that it is mandatory for the magistrate to follow the above procedure before issuing pre-cognizance notice to the proposed accused.
Randhawa has argued that the he has only received a copy of the trial court order and the complaint. No sworn statement of the Complainant or statement of witnesses has been received by the petitioner. Randhawa has stated that the Magistrate issued notice under Section 223 BNSS without first recording the sworn statement of the complainant.
Randhawa has further said that the allegations in the complaint do not disclose how the lyric in question constitutes an insult or an attempt to insult either the Jatt-Sikh community or the Sikh religion or its practices. The complainant's attempt to equate the colloquial reference to “gurthi” in the song with “Gurthi” mentioned in Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji is factually and conceptually misconceived, it states. It further states that in Punjabi vernacular, the word “gurthi” is often used in an ordinary, cultural, and familial sense without any theological or scriptural connotation and the lyric in question employs this expression in that ordinary social context, not as a reference to the Gurthi that signifies spiritual sustenance or divine grace in Sikh doctrine.
Thus, Randhawa argues that there is no reference, direct or implied, to Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji, Sikh religious authority, or to Sikhism in general.
With respect to allegation of defamation, Randhawa contends that the lyric in question is neither addressed to the complainant personally nor aimed at maligning or diminishing the reputation of the Jatt-Sikh community as a definite and identifiable body. The plea adds that the expression is artistic, and self-referential, devoid of any defamatory purpose or effect and in absence of specific intention or proximate nexus to cause reputational harm, the essential ingredients of the offence of criminal defamation
The matter is listed on July 16.
Case title: GURSHARANJOT SINGH RANDHAWA @ GURU RANDHAWA v/s RAJDEEP SINGH MANN AND OTHERS
CRM-M-13194-2026
Counsel for petitioner: Advocates Tejeshwar Singh & Tarushi Monga