The Punjab and Haryana High Court refused to close the 2017 Dera Sacha Sauda violence PIL, despite initial inclinations. Senior Advocate Anupam Gupta, Amicus Curiae, stressed state accountability and judicial responsibility.
Chandigarh: The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Friday decided not to close a public interest litigation (PIL) concerning the violence that erupted across Punjab and Haryana in 2017 after the conviction of Dera Sacha Sauda Chief Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh in a rape case.
A full bench consisting of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu, Justice Vinod S Bhardwaj, and Justice Vikram Aggarwal had initially shown an inclination to close the matter, suggesting that the case may have become infructuous due to the passage of time.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Rejects Plea to Ban Salman Rushdie’s The Satanic Verses in India
However, Senior Advocate Anupam Gupta, acting as the Amicus Curiae in the case, strongly opposed the proposed closure and emphasized the need for the Court to address the important legal questions framed back in August 2017.
Gupta said,
“I suspect there is an overwhelming anxiety to close the case feeling this is adding to the Court’s docket. It is an important, extremely sensitive matter.”
He further said,
“It would be distressing and dismaying if the court treats it as just another case in a situation clogged with arrears. It would be nothing less than a tragic abdication of judicial responsibility.”
Gupta urged the Court to investigate the acquittals of those accused in the cases of violence and to examine how the State of Haryana was allegedly supporting the Dera Sacha Sauda. He asserted that the State was “bending over backwards” to help the Dera for political reasons.
In light of these submissions, the Court decided to continue hearing the case instead of disposing of it.
The 2017 violence had resulted in the death of 36 people, and property worth several lakhs of rupees was damaged.
The unrest followed Ram Rahim’s conviction and had raised concerns over public safety, especially in Panchkula, where Dera followers had gathered around the district court. Prior to the verdict, a lawyer had approached the High Court seeking preventive measures to protect public safety.
The High Court had earlier intervened in the matter and formulated larger legal questions to handle such situations in the future.
These questions were related to police action, property damage, and the failure of the Haryana government to prevent the crowd from assembling in Panchkula.
Chief Justice Nagu remarked,
“Can we decide this in 226? It will be virtually holding trial.”
In response, Gupta said,
“Otherwise, it will be completed self-abnegation of judicial power, nothing less than a tragedy. Abdication of judicial power at this stage will be a self-inflicted moral wound on the credibility reputation of the Court. This Court has a responsibility to the future.”
Gupta said,
“One of the questions framed pertains to complicity of State with the Dera Sacha Sauda.”
He added,
“How can basic fundamental constitutional perspective be bypassed in the interest of convenience or speed or lack of time.”
Gupta said,
“The main question is whether the State had failed in preventing violence.”
He further said,
“Whatever be consequences of my lords’ opinion, whether absolution or an indictment, it must be faced.”
Chief Justice Nagu remarked,
“That is a disputed question of fact.”
The Court decided to hear the amicus on these issues after the Diwali vacation. The bench said,
“If you want to address on these issues, go ahead. Then we will have to place it on another day.”
Back on August 29, 2017, a bench comprising then Acting Chief Justice SS Saron, Justice Surya Kant (now a Supreme Court judge), and Justice Avneesh Jhingan (currently a Rajasthan High Court judge) had framed eight questions in the matter.
On Friday, the Court agreed to allow the amicus to address at least four of these questions:
(1) In what conditions and situations would preventive public interest litigation be maintainable before the High Court in a matter relating to law and order and public order which primarily is the domain of the law enforcing authorities?
(2) What would be the scope of jurisdiction of this Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 to determine the compensation payable for the damages, directly or indirectly, to the public at large and the private property on account of acts of violence and arson in Panchkula and other parts of the States of Punjab and Haryana?
(3) Whether the expenses for the loss and damages that have been caused are liable to be recovered from the defaulter and if so, whether it would include expenses incurred in damage to public and private properties, harassment, costs and the arrangements for mobilization of security forces and the actual security operations?
(4) Whether the State of Haryana has failed to perform its duty in preventing mass scale gathering of crowds in Panchkula and other parts of the State of Punjab and Haryana on 25/26.08.2017. In consequence of the above, it would require examination whether there was any complicity on the part of the State of Haryana with the agitators?
Senior Advocates Anupam Gupta, Chetan Mittal, and Ashok Aggarwal appeared for the matter, while Additional Advocate General Pawan Girdhar represented the State of Haryana and Additional Advocate General Chanchal K Singla represented the State of Punjab.
The High Court’s decision to continue hearing the case highlights its commitment to addressing the critical legal and constitutional questions surrounding state accountability, public safety, and the rule of law during mass violence incidents.
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Sunjay Kapur
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
