The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently stayed the criminal proceedings before a trial court against singer Gursharanjot Singh Randhawa, popularly known as Guru Randhawa, over the lyrics in his song “Sirra”. [Guru Randhawa v. Rajdeep Singh Mann]
Justice Surya Partap Singh on March 20 noted that the trial court's order from August 25, 2025 indicated that the notice had been issued to Randhawa without recording preliminary evidence.
"The above-mentioned order (trail court's order) makes it apparent that the notice to the petitioner/accused (Randhawa) has been issued without recording the preliminary evidence," said the Court.
After examining the submissions, the High Court stayed the proceedings before the trial court until the next hearing on July 16.
The complaint relates to the lyrics which states, “Jammeya nu gudti ch mildi afeem aa.”
The complainant alleged that the line suggested that “sons of Jatts have been given opium as the first thing on birth”, portraying members of the Jatt-Sikh community as narcotic users from birth.
It further alleged that the lyric distorts the concept of “Gurthi” described as a ceremonial first nourishment given to a newborn in Sikh tradition.
According to the complaint filed before Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate in Samrala, Ludhiana district, this portrayal lowered the image of the Jatt-Sikh community and Sikh religious practices, and amounted to defamation and an insult to the religious feelings of the community.
Based on the complaint, Randhawa was booked for offences under several provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). These include insulting religious feelings (Section 299 BNS), wounding religious feelings (Section 302 BNS), promoting enmity between groups (Section 196 BNS), public mischief/false statements (Section 353 BNS) and criminal defamation (Section 356 BNS).
The Magistrate issued notice to Randhawa and initiated proceedings in the case.
Randhawa then approached the Punjab and Haryana High Court seeking quashing of the complaint and the Magistrate’s order issuing notice.
The petition before the High Court stated Randhawa had responded to a legal notice sent before the complaint was filed and had denied any intention to hurt religious sentiments.
“The Petitioner categorically denied any intent to outrage religious feelings, explaining that he himself belongs to the Sikh faith and has utmost reverence for its traditions. At the same time, the Petitioner assured that the lyric in question would be revised/removed from all platforms within three to five business days,” said the plea.
The petition also underscored that Randhawa himself is a devout Sikh and regularly participates in religious ceremonies.
“The petitioner is a devout follower of the Sikh religion and regularly participates in religious ceremonies. Given the Petitioner’s personal faith and religious convictions, it is inconceivable that he would deliberately act in a manner that insults or denigrates the very religion he practices and reveres,” said the plea.
It also noted that after the notice was received, the singer and his label had contacted digital platforms including YouTube, Spotify, Apple Music, Amazon Music and Instagram seeking removal or replacement of the audio and video containing the lyrics.
The plea argued that the essential requirement of deliberate or malicious intent required under the law is absent in the present case.
“Under no circumstances can it be said that there was any deliberate or malicious intention on the part of the Petitioner to insult or outrage the religious feelings of the Jatt-Sikh community. The Petitioner is himself a practicing Sikh and belongs to the Jatt-Sikh community. The objectionable lyric, even if taken literally, cannot be attributed to any malice or intent to insult or outrage the religious feelings of the Jatt-Sikh community,” said the petition.
The plea also noted that any interpretation of the lyric as offensive was inconsistent with the singer’s own background and professional interests.
According to the petition, the lyrics formed part of a song and must be viewed in the context of creative expression rather than as a literal statement about any community practice.
It further stated that the song is part of a creative work and fell within the protection of freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
Apart from contesting the allegations, Randhawa also raised objections to the procedure followed by the Magistrate while issuing notice in the complaint.
It argued that the procedure prescribed under Section 223 of the BNSS, which requires the Magistrate to examine the complainant and witnesses on oath before taking cognisance, was not followed.
Advocates Tejeshwar Singh and Tarushi Monga appeared for Randhawa.
[Read Order]