8 years on, HC to revisit Haryana’s role in Panchkula violence

When the Punjab and Haryana High Court opens after the short Diwali break in October, it will – among other things – hear arguments on whether “there was any complicity on the State of Haryana’s part with the agitators” during the Panchkula violence nearly eight years ago.

As the matter revolving around widespread rioting in Panchkula and other places after Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh’s conviction in a rape case came up for resumed hearing, amicus curiae or the friend of the court Anupam Gupta made it clear that he would be addressing the Bench on this and other issues framed by the court in the matter.

His assertion came amidst high court’s efforts to dispose of the matter today itself. The Bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu, Justice Vinod S Bhardwaj, Justice Vikram Aggarwal was of the view that issues such as amount of compensation for damages to property during the violence could be decided by a tribunal constituted under the Special Laws.

Senior advocate Gupta, however, insisted on addressing the Bench on the larger issues framed by the court in an earlier order. “My submissions will be much larger and totally independent of Punjab or Haryana…. My Lord may not deal with this case as many cases which clog the docket…. It is an extremely sensitive matter”.

Referring to the questions framed by the Bench during the phase of initial hearings, Gupta submitted: “The principles of culpability and accountability emerged in those six questions. Those questions, the court may resolve — the question of law on constitutional principles. The quantification of compensation can be left to the tribunals. Otherwise, it will lead to self-abnegation of judicial power, nothing less than a tragedy.”

Chief Justice Nagu, during the course of hearing, pointed out that determining complicity on the State’s part would virtually mean holding a trial with denials and counter-contentions. The Bench made it clear that it would eventually lead to the emergence of disputed question of law. “The State would say that we have not failed. You, or someone else, would say that they have failed. Now, how do we decide?”

Speaking for the Bench, Justice Bhardwaj asserted: “Whatever material can be examined, it must be seen in the light of whether it shows complicity of the State as a conspirator. Culpability can be fixed only if there is something to establish conspiracy, not merely an administrative lapse. An administrative lapse, by itself, is not culpability. So, whatever material is available, if it is sufficient to bring out culpability, it would be a function of the State… Whatever measures are required must be investigated. Whatever suggestions come must be considered. Because eventually, the matter has to be brought to a close”.

Before parting, the Bench asked the counsel for the rival parties to first address the court on whether the issues framed were alive or had become infructuous due to efflux of time.