A Conservative peer is facing legal action at the High Court over an interview he gave to a Pakistani publication in which he questioned the faith and funding of a Sikh activist. Lord Raminder Singh Ranger has been accused of defaming Gurpatwant Singh Pannun, a US-based attorney and general counsel to Sikhs for Justice (SFJ), which campaigns for Sikh people in Indian-governed Punjab.
Lord Ranger spoke to a journalist working for The Pakistan Daily, and in an article published on November 30 2021 he was quoted as saying Mr Pannun “doesn’t even follow Sikhism” and that he and SFJ have been “misleading” people about the claimed ill-treatment of Sikhs in Punjab. Mr Pannun and the UK branch of SFJ, who deny the allegations, began legal action against Lord Ranger over his comments in the article, as well as two retweets containing a link to the piece.
They are also suing over a tweet Lord Ranger posted on February 1 2022 in which he called Mr Pannun a “selfish man” who receives money from “the enemy of India”, which Mr Pannun also denies. At a High Court hearing in London on Tuesday, a judge threw out SFJ’s claim while Mr Pannun’s will continue.
David Lemer, for SFJ and Mr Pannun, had argued that Lord Ranger’s comments have caused “serious harm” to the reputations of his clients. In written submissions, he said readers of the article would be led to think that the UK branch of SFJ was labelled as a terrorist organisation, when it was only the US-based SFJ that was declared as such by the Indian government.
In court documents, Mr Lemer said that the publications had led to “a significant but unspecified number of people believing that SFJ is a terrorist organisation of which Mr Pannun is the figurehead and that both are being secretly funded by the enemies of India and, in particular, Pakistan, as well as using funds from its donors for illegitimate ends”.
“Such beliefs have undermined the campaigning activities of SFJ and Mr Pannun since they have impugned their integrity,” he continued. William Bennett KC, for Lord Ranger, said in written submissions that it is “apparent” that the article is not referring to the UK branch of SFJ because it describes the organisation as being based in the US, and that SFJ’s case should be thrown out.
He added: “There is nothing in the article which suggests a conspiracy, a secret conspiracy or that SFJ and Mr Pannun are dishonest about the fact that they are funded by an enemy of India or by Pakistan.”
He asked the court to strike out part of the claim relating to SFJ. Mr Justice Jay granted the bid to dismiss SFJ’s claim, rejecting Mr Lemer’s suggestion that the article refers to the UK branch.
He said: “I simply cannot accept this, having regard to the language of the article and the relevant context.” A further hearing could now be held at a later date.
Sign up to our London Court & Crime newsletter for the latest major court updates and breaking news delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up HERE
