New Delhi: The Haryana government Monday vehemently opposed in the top court the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s move to direct an independent probe under the supervision of a retired HC judge into the death of a farmer during the farmers’ protests in February. However, the Supreme Court refused to stay the HC order.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Haryana government, told the Supreme Court that it was not the function of judges to investigate such incidents. They were better suited to arbitrate disputes, he said.
He criticised the HC order for even asking the judge-led panel to ascertain whether the force used by the police on the ground was commensurate to the threat posed by the agitators.
Such an inquiry, the solicitor argued, would demoralise the morale of the police force, which in future would be compelled to hold back from acting against protestors. “And only one institution would be responsible for this,” Mehta added, insinuating the judiciary would be blamed for inaction against rioters.
The solicitor made his submissions before a bench of justices Surya Kant and K.V. Viswanathan, while arguing the Haryana government’s appeal against the HC order of 7 March which constituted a three-member independent inquiry panel to probe the death of farmer Shubhkaran Singh from Bathinda.
He was part of the march that farmers from Punjab took out on 13 February to protest for their demands including the enactment of a law to guarantee minimum support price (MSP) for crops.
The Haryana government had put in place strict security measures to block the farmers from entering the state and then Delhi. It used force to prevent them from marching towards the national capital.
The HC had made disparaging remarks against the governments of both Haryana and Punjab for shirking their responsibility in the matter, observing both the states “have several things to cover up”.
Retired Punjab and Haryana HC judge Justice Jaishree Thakur was nominated to head the panel with two senior police officers from Punjab and Haryana respectively. The officers are assistant directors general of police Parmod Ban from Punjab and Amitabh Singh Dhillon from Haryana.
The committee was asked to give a report on which police authority should have the jurisdiction to investigate the death, confirm the place of occurrence of the incident and the cause of the farmer’s death.
The panel was also told to examine the issue of whether force used by the police was commensurate with the situation and even decide on the issue of compensation.
These directions were issued in response to a public interest litigation (PIL) that was filed before the HC, demanding an independent investigation into the farmer’s death.
Mehta likened the enquiry committee to an arbitration panel. “This is like one person nominated for one party and the other on behalf of the second party,” he said. The solicitor also said if the police have to face a PIL for each incident, it would be difficult for it to control the law and order situation.
Around 67 policemen were injured during the protests where the agitators were armed with lathis, spears, and swords among other weapons, he informed the bench. All of this, he argued, was recorded in the HC order. Yet, the court preferred to ask a retired judge to look into the incident.
However, the bench did not agree with Mehta’s viewpoint and felt the HC order was to infuse impartiality and transparency in the probe. “There were some apprehensions expressed before the HC and that is why it has constituted the committee,” the bench told him.
Justice Kant observed that the allegations were against the Haryana Police, hence Mehta’s concern about the order affecting the morale of the police had no basis. “You don’t know the Haryana Police, Mr Mehta,” Justice Kant told the solicitor in jest.
The court refused to stay the HC order and fixed 10 April to hear the matter again. “Let the HC take up the issue on 9 April… then we will see what is to be done,” it said.
(Edited by Tikli Basu)
Also read: Swift action, measured words — how BJP govt’s response to farmers’ protest has changed since 2020