"Lack Of Police Action Can't Be Exempted Under Sovereign Immunity": Punjab & Haryana High Court Imposes Rs 1 Lakh Cost On Bathinda SSP

Observing that "lack of adequate and proper action on the part of the Police cannot be exempted or insulated under a sovereign immunity", the Punjab & Haryana High Court has imposed a cost of Rs.1 lakh on Punjab's Bathinda SSP for failing to take adequate steps against protesting farmers who stalled National Gas Pipeline Project.

Justice Vinod S. Bhardwaj said,

"the lack of adequate and proper action on the part of the Police cannot be exempted or insulated under a sovereign immunity. The law has evolved much further and the State has been cast with a duty to protect its citizens and to maintain law and order. Failure by the State authorities to fulfill the said duty, resulting in a consequential harm to individuals and leading to potential claims, gives rise to an actionable cause."

A liability can be fastened on the State where it is evident that there was a failure to act reasonably in maintaining law and order. The over blown fear of breach of peace, which is based more on apprehensions and lack of grit and determination and lack of leadership in law enforcement rather than objective input cannot be accepted as an excuse to sacrifice the rule of law, the judge added.

The Court was hearing a plea filed by Gujarat Government's undertaking, GSPL India Gasnet Limited seeking protection for its employee from Punjab Government against the locals allegedly stalling National Pipeline Project.

In 2017, the Central Government in public interest decided the transportation of natural gas from Gujarat's Mehsana to Bhatinda, Punjab from a pipeline should be laid down by GSPL, a Gujarat Government's undertaking, the petitioners submitted.

However, the project was allegedly stalled by the local farmers who were protesting for "exorbitant demand of Rs. 1 Crores per acre" for acquiring "right of user" of their land.

The plea submitted that the Additional District Magistrate Bathinda had issued instructions to SSP to provide police support in order to complete the project but despite that the local administration is not providing adequate support.

After hearing the submissions, the Court said that instead of pointing out the reasons as to why the necessary Police help could not be provided for, the response is only that they have inquired into the aspect of alleged obstruction being caused by the villagers and the employees of the petitioner being held captive.

Person Aggrieved Has Right To Protest But Cannot Hold Rights Of Other As Hostage

The Court further said that, "No doubt that a person aggrieved has a right to stage protest or to assemble peacefully but such right cannot hold rights of every other person or entity as hostage."

Referring to Beenu Rawat and others v. Union of India and others [(2013) 16 SCC 430], the bench said a balance has always been drawn between the right to protest but being compliant of the law and regulations and adherence to the legal boundaries.

"The right is subject to limitations to ensure public order, safety and protection of rights of others. There has to be a minimization of disruption to free movement of public as well as damage to public property. Even though conservative understanding of “damage to public property' is understood in the context of causing harm or destruction of public property, however, the concept of “damage” and “property” need to be understood and accepted in a broader meaning," the Court held.

The Court noted that protestors were demanding "higher compensation" and "the lack of state action has resulted in vesting of the power of determining compensation, with the Police, under the heightened claim of law and order problem."

Justice Bhardwaj said, "While social justice is the guiding force behind Rule of Law, its foundation on public order is an essential pre- requisite. An alleged demand for a perceived oppression and denial of social justice cannot be used as a facade to hold public order to ransom."

The judge noted that, "Even though respondent Police has filed its reply highlighting the alleged law and order problems but has failed to give details of the steps taken by them for settlement or about how it tends to resolve the same. No satisfactory explanation has been put forth as to why despite more than four years of the petitioner-Company approaching the authorities of one single District of Punjab to provide Police assistance, the work of laying of the National Gas Pipeline could not be completed."

The work by GSPL India Gasnet Limited to lay the 940-km pipeline for supply of natural gas from Mehsana (Gujarat) to Bathinda had commenced in 2018 and crossed the 840-km stretch in Gujarat, Rajasthan and Haryana in just two years but the work on the last patch in Bathinda has been pending for the last four years, noted the Court.

"It leads much to the imagination of the Court as to whether bonefide action can be assumed under such circumstances," it added.

Perusing the report submitted by the State authorities, the Court noted, "a perusal of the report submitted by the respondents also shows that the assessed compensation was on the advice of the civil administration and was already much higher than the prevalent circle rate for the 'right of user' and had already been credited to the account of the landowners/alleged protestors."

The Court further said that exertion of pressure, under the garb of protest and demonstrations, by not allowing the employees and staff to carry out lawful activities-emboldened by the confidence that the Police shall not take any action gives rise to a belief about might being right, a principle which civilized society discarded long away.

In the light ion the above, the Court imposed a cost of Rs.1 lakh on the Senior Superintendent of Police, Bathinda "for lack of initiative and taking adequate steps and noticing that dilatory tactic is being adopted by the District Police."

Adding that a protection shall be provided to the employee, the Court also directed the SSP that he shall make every endeavor to provide proper Police assistance and make arrangements to ensure timely completion of the project of the petitioner-Company.

Mr. Bipin Ghai, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Anupam Bhanot, Advocate and Mr. Nikhil Ghai, Advocate for the petitioners.

Ms. Akshita Chauhan, DAG, Punjab for respondents No.1 to 6.

Title: GSPL INDIA GASNET LTD. AND ANOTHER V. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 192

Click here to read/download the order