Haryana’s Plea Denied: SC Supports Judicial Probe on Farmer’s Killing

In a significant legal development on August 12, 2024, the Supreme Court of India dismissed a request made by the State of Haryana to stay the Punjab & Haryana High Court’s order, which called for a judicial inquiry into the death of Shubhkaran Singh, a farmer who died during a protest. This decision was delivered by a Bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan.

Background of the Case

• Shubhkaran Singh lost his life on February 21, 2024, while protesting on the Punjab-Haryana border. His protest was part of a larger movement demanding a law that would guarantee Minimum Support Price (MSP) for crops.
• Singh’s family alleged that he was killed by a bullet fired by the Haryana police and subsequently approached the Punjab & Haryana High Court seeking justice.

High Court’s Decision and Formation of the Inquiry Committee

• The Punjab & Haryana High Court, led by Acting Chief Justice GS Sandhawalia and Justice Lapita Banerji, ordered a judicial inquiry into the matter, stating that the investigation could not be entrusted to either Punjab or Haryana “for obvious reasons.”
• A three-member Committee was constituted to conduct the inquiry, headed by Justice Jaishree Thakur, a retired judge of the Punjab & Haryana High Court. The Committee also included Parmood Ban, ADGP, Punjab, and Amitabh Singh Dhillon, ADGP, Haryana.

Supreme Court Proceedings on August 12, 2024

• During the proceedings, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing Haryana, opposed the inclusion of a particular aspect of the inquiry. He contested the Committee’s authority to evaluate whether a lesser degree of force could have been used by the police, arguing that this could “demoralize the police.” He stated, “This can never be, in my respectful submission, a subject matter of a judicial inquiry. This demoralises the police.”
• In response, Justice Kant remarked, “Sometimes it strengthens their hands also. Sometimes.” Despite Mehta’s assertion that the police faced an “unprecedented situation,” the Court maintained its stance.

Additional Context and Related Matters

• The Court also heard a related case concerning the blockade of the national highway at the Shambhu border between Punjab and Haryana due to the farmers’ protest.
• Following the Court’s order in this matter, Additional Advocate General of Haryana Lokesh Sinhal raised concerns again about the judicial probe. He mentioned that although they were not given the minutes of the Committee’s meetings, videos were being submitted to the Committee, with the Superintendent of Police (SP) asked to comment on them.
• Justice Kant suggested that officers should examine these videos before they enter the public domain, remarking, “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.”

Final Observations and Future Proceedings

• When questioned by the Additional Advocate General about the Committee’s authority to assess the adequacy of the police force used, Justice Kant responded, “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.”
• Justice Bhuyan added, “Take it in that spirit, it is headed by the retired judge of the High Court.”
• Justice Kant also referenced the Lakhimpur Kheri case, where the Supreme Court appointed a retired High Court judge to oversee the investigation.
• Both matters were adjourned to August 22, 2024 for further hearings.

Previous Supreme Court Rulings

• It is noteworthy that the Supreme Court had previously declined to stay the High Court’s order, emphasizing that a judicial inquiry would ensure a fair investigation into the allegations against the Haryana police.
• Justice Kant had earlier commented that when two state police agencies are likely to take conflicting stances, it is the responsibility of the High Court to appoint a neutral overseer.

THE STATE OF HARYANA vs. UDAY PRATAP SINGH., Diary No. – 30656/2024