Let me come straight to the crux of the matter. In a landmark judgment with widespread ramifications, the Supreme Court has held very recently that, The testimony of a sanyasi or mendicant who renounced the world and follows an ascetic life cannot be accepted in a civil dispute by a court of law. It must be understood by one and all that in any civil dispute, the testimony of renunciate is not valid and therefore holds no relevance at all.

Let me also shed some light here on this landmark judgment. The order came on a plea filed by the sanyasi's family which wanted the Haryana government to return their 30 acres in Palwal, declared surplus and allotted to different individuals under a local law in 1961 before he gave up worldly life.

A bench headed by Justice Dipak Misra while rejecting the testimony of Bhalle Ram who is a mendicant from Jind who had deposed in favour of his sons in a property dispute held very categorically that:
When you become a sanyasi you must abandon all material or worldly affairs. This must always be borne in mind by all and sundry because no one can afford to ignore what is held by the highest court of the land.

While craving for my esteemed readers exclusive indulgence, let me point out here that the family of Bhalle Ram who his family told the court, had renounced the world way back in 1964 and relinquished from his own free consent the ownership of his land. The appeal was filed after the family lost two rounds of litigation that began in 1967. To this, the bench of Supreme Court headed by Justice Dipak Misra raised eyebrows and stated categorically while upholding the verdict of the Punjab and Haryana High Court that, Sanyasis used to leave their home to write scriptures. Forget cars, they never even travelled in bullock carts. But nowadays, sanyasis move in cars and aeroplanes.

For my readers benefit, let me also state here explicitly that Ram's testimony in favour of his children during the civil trial gave it away. This was not taken kindly by the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Terming this an act of worldly affairs, the Punjab and Haryana High Court held that he became a sanyasi but still could not detach himself from the materialistic world. He came forward and deposed in favour of his children, it concluded.

Be it noted, the Punjab and Haryana High Court while sparing no punches lashed out at the likes of Bhalle Ram who could not shed away their attachment with the material world even after becoming a renunciate and held that:
A person renounces the world when he ceases to take interest in worldly affairs or retires to a single room. In order to bring a person under the head 'sanyas', it is necessary to show absolute abandonment by him of all secular property and a complete and final withdrawal from worldly affairs. I am absolutely certain that all those who renunciate the world but continue to attach themselves to worldly affairs will always bear in mind what the Punjab and Haryana High Court as also the Supreme Court has held in this latest landmark verdict. They cannot afford to ignore and if they still do so, it will be at the cost of their own peril!

The Punjab and Haryana High Court also made it crystal clear while dismissing the Bhalle Ram's family petition that, Needless to say that an ascetic order means severing all ties from the worldly affairs unlike Bhalle Ram who continued to pursue civil or criminal proceedings for the personal gain of his family members. It is a no-brainer that the Apex Court too upheld the Punjab and Haryana High Court order as there was no valid reason to differ from it.

The legal fraternity too welcomed this landmark judgment in no uncertain terms. Supreme Court advocate Aishwarya Bhati said that:
Civil death means existence of the person comes to an end. How could this man come back to give this evidence? It clearly shows that this was to circumvent the law under which his land was declared surplus and taken away by the government.

This is exactly that was not taken kindly by both Punjab and Haryana High Court as also the Supreme Court and very rightly so! I am sure that in future not only all renunciate but also all his/her family members would bear it in mind and refrain from relying on renunciate's testimony in civil disputes as it is not valid and this has been made amply clear by both Punjab and Haryana High Court and the Supreme Court also which is the last word on all legal issues and this palpably includes civil disputes also!

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col BPS Sirohi, A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera, Meerut -250001, UP.