NHRC has ordered Punjab’s Chief Secretary and DGP to investigate allegations that Chief Minister Bhagwant Mann’s wife, Dr Gurpreet Kaur, sought Rs 5 crore to suppress an Amritsar rape case. The Commission has sought an Action Taken Report within two weeks. Dr Kaur has strongly denied the allegations and sent a legal notice to retired judge Justice.
A serious allegation involving Punjab Chief Minister Bhagwant Mann’s wife, Dr Gurpreet Kaur, has triggered scrutiny by the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), a legal battle and a fresh political storm in the state. The NHRC has taken cognisance of a complaint alleging that Dr Kaur sought Rs 5 crore to suppress a rape case in Amritsar. It has directed the Punjab Chief Secretary and Director General of Police to inquire into the allegation and submit an Action Taken Report within two weeks.
The Commission has not found Dr Kaur guilty of any wrongdoing. Its intervention is limited, at this stage, to seeking an inquiry and a report from the Punjab authorities. The matter has also been forwarded to the Women’s Safety Division of the Union Ministry of Home Affairs.
The case is linked to an earlier FIR registered in Amritsar and a petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court in which the complainant’s family raised concerns about the fairness of the police investigation. The allegations are serious, but they remain allegations. The High Court did not hold Dr Gurpreet Kaur, or any other person named in the wider controversy, guilty.
What has the NHRC ordered?
The controversy reached the NHRC after a complaint referred to allegations made by retired Punjab and Haryana High Court judge Justice Ranjit Singh.
According to NHRC member Priyank Kanoongo, the complaint alleged that the wife of Punjab Chief Minister Bhagwant Mann had attempted to suppress a rape case in exchange for Rs 5 crore.
The Commission considered the allegations serious enough to seek an official response.
The NHRC Bench, headed by Kanoongo, directed the Punjab Chief Secretary and the DGP to have the allegations examined and submit an Action Taken Report within two weeks.
The Commission has also sent the matter to the Women’s Safety Division of the Union Ministry of Home Affairs.
Importantly, the NHRC’s order does not amount to a finding that the allegation is true. It means that the Commission wants the Punjab authorities to investigate the complaint and place their response before it. What happens next will depend on the findings and the NHRC’s assessment of the Action Taken Report.
The Amritsar case at the centre of the controversy
The larger controversy is connected to FIR No. 77, registered on April 29, 2026, at Civil Lines police station in Amritsar. The victim’s family later approached the Punjab and Haryana High Court, alleging that the investigation was not being conducted fairly.
According to the claims placed before the court, the woman was allegedly abducted on the promise of marriage and was subjected to sexual relations against her will. The petitioners also alleged threats to circulate obscene photographs and attempts to blackmail her.
The family further claimed that local police officials had pressured them to support the cancellation of the FIR.
They also raised allegations of political influence and the involvement of influential intermediaries. The State and private respondents denied the allegations.
These competing claims formed the background to the High Court’s intervention. The court did not decide who was telling the truth or determine criminal liability. Instead, it examined whether the complainant’s family had a genuine reason to fear that the investigation might not inspire confidence.
What did the Punjab and Haryana High Court do?
In its July 20, 2026, order, the Punjab and Haryana High Court declined the request to transfer the case to the CBI.
However, the court acknowledged the family’s apprehension about the fairness of the investigation.
Justice Mandeep Pannu partly allowed the petition and directed that the investigation be placed under the supervision of the Special DGP dealing with Women Affairs and Women Welfare in Punjab.
The court also directed the Special DGP to nominate a senior Gazetted Officer who had not previously been associated with the case.
The new investigating officer was asked to independently examine the available material and conduct further investigation wherever necessary.
The High Court made it clear that the probe must be carried out in accordance with the law and must be objective, fair, impartial and expeditious.
At the same time, the court did not endorse the truth of every allegation made by the victim’s family. Its focus was on ensuring that the criminal justice process retained the confidence of those involved.
That distinction is crucial. Ordering a fresh or independently supervised investigation does not establish the guilt of any person. It is a procedural safeguard intended to ensure that allegations are examined without bias or undue influence.
Why are allegations of political influence being examined?
The victim’s family had raised several concerns in its petition.
Among them was the allegation that police officials had visited their home and pressured them to support the cancellation of the FIR.
The family also claimed that the accused and their associates had intimidated members of the household.
They alleged that the woman’s brother was threatened and that there were attempts to pressure the family through threats relating to the woman’s future and the alleged circulation of obscene photographs.
The petition also referred to allegations about intermediaries and claimed links to influential political figures.
The family alleged that money and influence were being used to affect the investigation.
Those allegations have been denied by the State and the private respondents.
The purpose of the court-ordered change in the investigation’s supervision was therefore to ensure that the case was examined by an officer not previously connected with it and under senior-level oversight.
What is Dr Gurpreet Kaur’s response?
Dr Gurpreet Kaur has strongly denied the allegation that she sought Rs 5 crore to suppress a rape case.
She has described the accusation as baseless, fabricated and politically motivated, and challenged those making the claim to produce proof.
She has also sent a legal notice to retired Justice Ranjit Singh over the allegation. Reports said the notice sought a response and warned of legal action if the allegations were not addressed.
Her response makes clear that she disputes the claim entirely and intends to contest it through legal means.
This means the controversy is now unfolding on two tracks: an NHRC-directed inquiry into the complaint and a possible legal dispute over the allegations themselves.
What is the Punjab government’s position?
The Punjab government has maintained that the investigation into the underlying Amritsar case is being conducted according to law.
Its position before the High Court was that the accused’s release by a magistrate was based on the material before the court and was not the result of improper influence.
The State also argued that no final or cancellation report had been filed in the case and that there was therefore no basis at that stage to transfer the investigation elsewhere.
The accused side has similarly denied allegations of political pressure, intimidation and attempts to improperly secure cancellation of the FIR.
The High Court ultimately did not transfer the matter to the CBI but ordered a different mechanism of supervision within the Punjab Police.
Why does the NHRC intervention matter?
The NHRC’s involvement has increased the institutional scrutiny surrounding the allegations.
The Commission has not conducted a trial or pronounced anyone guilty. Its action means that a constitutional human rights body has found the complaint serious enough to require a formal response from Punjab’s top civil and police authorities.
The two-week deadline for the Action Taken Report will therefore be closely watched.
The report could explain what steps the Punjab government and police have taken to verify or investigate the allegation. The NHRC will then decide whether any further action is required.
The matter’s referral to the Union Home Ministry’s Women’s Safety Division has also added another layer of official attention.
The wider political fallout
The allegations have already sparked sharp political reactions in Punjab.
Opposition leaders have demanded answers and called for a fair investigation. BJP workers in Amritsar staged protests on August 24, while political rivals of the AAP government have used the controversy to question the Mann administration’s record on accountability.
The controversy has also revived discussion around earlier allegations involving members of the Mann government and people associated with it.
However, these are separate matters. Allegations involving former ministers, government officials or other investigations cannot be treated as evidence that the present allegation is true.
Each case has its own facts, evidence and legal process.
For that reason, the current controversy should not be presented as proof of a broader conspiracy unless an investigating agency or court establishes such a connection.
What’s next?
The immediate focus will be on the Punjab Chief Secretary and DGP, who have been asked to get the allegation examined and submit an Action Taken Report to the NHRC within two weeks.
Separately, the investigation into the underlying Amritsar case is to continue under the supervision structure ordered by the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
Dr Gurpreet Kaur’s legal notice to retired Justice Ranjit Singh could also lead to separate legal proceedings.
The next few weeks will therefore be important. The NHRC report may clarify what Punjab authorities have found about the allegation, while the independently supervised investigation into the Amritsar FIR will continue on its own legal track.
Until then, the most important distinction remains clear: the allegations have triggered official scrutiny, but they have not been established as facts or resulted in a finding of guilt against Dr Gurpreet Kaur or any other person named in the controversy.