A cheating and forgery case against former Punjab Chief Minister Parkash Singh Badal and his son Sukhbir Singh Badal, the president of the Shiromani Akali Dal (SAD) party, has been quashed by the Supreme Court. However, this decision has now come under scrutiny, as three review petitions have been filed challenging the Court's ruling.

The case, filed by Balwant Singh Khera, alleged that the SAD party had submitted separate constitutions to the Gurdwara Election Commission and the Election Commission of India (ECI). Khera argued that this act contradicted the party's claim of being secular while simultaneously contesting elections for a religious body, the Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee (SGPC). The complaint was initially filed back in 2009 before an Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate.

After the Punjab and Haryana High Court rejected the Badals' plea to quash the case, they approached the Supreme Court. Surprisingly, on April 28, 2023, the Supreme Court bench of Justices MR Shah and CT Ravikumar ruled in favor of the Badals, stating that none of the alleged offenses' elements were present. The Court criticized the High Court's failure to quash the proceedings earlier, deeming them an abuse of the process of law.

It's important to note that the Supreme Court's decision only pertains to the specific case and does not comment on the constitution of the Shiromani Akali Dal party. The Court clarified that its verdict should not influence the proceedings related to an order of the Election Commission of India currently pending before the Delhi High Court.

The controversial ruling has sparked public interest, leading to three review petitions being filed against the Supreme Court's decision. This unexpected twist indicates that the case is far from over, and the outcome of the review will be closely watched.

While former CM Parkash Singh Badal and his son Sukhbir Singh Badal may have found temporary relief, the legal battle surrounding the alleged cheating and forgery charges continues to captivate the attention of the nation. As the review petitions unfold, the ultimate fate of this intriguing case remains uncertain, leaving the public eagerly awaiting further developments.