E-Paper
Punjab & Haryana HC to examine whether govt machinery failed to prevent 2017 Panchkula violence
A full bench presided over by Chief Justice Sheel Nagu on Friday picked four of the issues, framed by high court in 2017, which it said, would deal with now.
Seven years after widespread violence was reported in Panchkula and parts of Punjab and Haryana in 2017 following conviction of Dera Sacha Sauda head Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh in two rape cases, the Punjab and Haryana high court will start hearing from October to examine whether government machinery failed in preventing the violence and also whether violence was result of some conspiracy between followers and government functionaries.
A full bench presided over by Chief Justice Sheel Nagu on Friday picked four of the issues, framed by high court in 2017, which it said, would deal with now. These include culpability of the state in violence and most importantly whether the state can recover the money from Dera Sacha Sauda head for damage to public and private property.
On August 25, 2017, the dera head was convicted in two rape cases of his disciples in 2002 at Sirsa-based dera headquarters. This was his first conviction and he was brought to Panchkula from Sirsa in a large cavalcade to present him before the CBI court. As soon as the conviction order was passed, widespread violence started in Panchkula and parts of Haryana, Punjab and Chandigarh in which at least 41 persons had died, including 30 in Panchkula. Later, the Dera head had to be handed down the sentencing order through video hearing while he remained in Sunaria jail of Rohtak. Lakhs of dera followers had gathered in Panchkula, days prior to him being convicted. Immediately, after he was convicted violence broke out and within hours the army had to take over the law and order situation in Panchkula. It was in these circumstances the high court had entertained a PIL, which framed these questions now being considered by the high court.
The court on Friday was initially inclined to dispose of the matter and hand it over to a tribunal to deal with the issue of compensation etc. However, amicus curaie Anum Gupta opposed the move and after impassioned arguments of nearly half an hour, the court decided to deal with the four of the questions framed in 2017.
Gupta had submitted that the matter was not limited to quantification of damages but also covered principles of culpability and accountability. “The main question is whether the state had failed in preventing violence,” Gupta said.
“It would be distressing and dismaying if the court treats it as just another case ... It would be nothing less than a tragic abdication of judicial responsibility,” Gupta submitted.
As per statements given in 2022 by the Punjab and Haryana governments, losses to public and private property and other expenses to the tune of ₹290 crore were incurred by both the states. The Punjab government had told court that it incurred ₹38 crore on security arrangements and losses of another ₹133 crore on damages to public and private property and loss to state exchequer. The total amount quoted by the state is ₹171 crore.
On the other hand, Haryana has told the court that a total of ₹118.96 crore losses/ expenses were incurred including ₹20 crore on security arrangements, ₹18 crore loss to government exchequer and loss to government and private property worth ₹80 crore across the state. Property worth ₹13 crore was damaged in Sirsa alone and ₹10 crore in Panchkula, the state had told the court.
The questions court is going to deal with now
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 the high court 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 Haryana has failed to perform its duty in preventing mass scale gathering of crowds in Panchkula and other parts of Punjab and Haryana on August 25 and 26, 2017.
