Farmers Protest : Judicial Inquiry Into Protester's Death Demoralises Police, Says Haryana; Supreme Court Disagrees

The Bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan said that the Committee will give its opinion regarding the force used by the Police. Based on this, determination would be made either by the High Court or the Supreme Court.

Shubhkaran Singh lost his life on February 21 while protesting, inter-alia, for the demand of a law guaranteeing Minimum Support Price (MSP) for crops on the Punjab-Haryana border. Alleging that he lost his life after being hit by a bullet fired by the Haryana police, his family approached the High Court.

In the order passed by the Punjab & Haryana High Court, Acting Chief Justice (ACJ) GS Sandhawalia and Justice Lapita Banerji said that the investigation cannot be handed over to Punjab or Haryana "for obvious reasons". The High Court formed a three-membered Committee headed by Justice Jaishree Thakur, Retired Judge of Punjab & Haryana High Court, who will be assisted by Parmod Ban, ADGP, Punjab, and Amitabh Singh Dhillon, ADGP, Haryana. Against this backdrop, the appeal was filed before the Top Court.

During the course of today's proceedings Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the State of Haryana, submitted that one of the subject matters assigned to the judicial Committee is whether a lesser force could have been used. He vehemently opposed the same, saying that this demoralises the police.

“Where the judicial body is supervising investigation and one of the subject matters assigned to them is whether this could have been done by a lesser force….This can never be, in my respectful submission, a subject matter of a judicial inquiry. This demoralises the police.”

At this, Justice Kant remarked: “Sometimes it strengthens their hands also. Sometimes.” However, Mehta said that in this case (police) were dealing with an unprecedented situation.

Today, the court was also hearing a connected matter related to the blockade at the national highway at the Shambhu border between the States of Punjab and Haryana due to farmers' protest. After the passing of the order in this case, Additional Advocate General of Haryana Lokesh Sinhal again mentioned the judicial probe.

However, Justice Kant said: “Let us see…if the recommendations come and you find that there is nothing wrong with those recommendations, you will probably will not raise the issue.”

Following this, AAG submitted that though they are not being given the minutes of the meeting, videos are being submitted before the Committee and based on this, SP is asked to give his comments.

Not finding this submission acceptable, Justice Kant said that instead, the officers examine these videos before they come before the public domain. Accordingly, it can be firmly submitted before the Committee that the videos are fake.

“Everyday, these video are fake…deepfake this and that. A lot of issues….cybercrime. It is better that officers examine it even before it comes before the public domain and you can firmly inform the committee that it is fake.”

When AG said how the Committee could determine whether the force used was sufficient or not, Justice Kant said: “Let us see what the committee will say then we will determine. The committee will only give its opinion, the determination will either by the High Court or by us.”

Supplementing this thought, Justice Bhuyan said “Take it in that spirit, it is headed by the retired judge of the High Court.”

Justice Kant also referred to the Lakhimpur Kheri case wherein it had appointed a retired High Court judge to monitor the probe.

The Court adjourned both matters to August 22, 2024.

It may also be mentioned that the Top Court had earlier also refused to stay the High Court order, the Court orally observed that a judicial probe would ensure a fair investigation of the allegations against the Haryana police.

Justice Kant had also orally said that in a case where the two police agencies of two states are likely to take a stand that is at variance from each other, the High Court is expected to appoint a neutral umpire.

Case Details: THE STATE OF HARYANA vs. UDAY PRATAP SINGH., Diary No. - 30656/2024