HC restrains Punjab SC Commission Chairman from interfering in police probe against Raja Warring

The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Friday directed that the Chairman of the Punjab State Commission for Scheduled Castes shall not interfere “by any means whatsoever” in the police investigation of the FIR registered against Punjab Congress president and Lok Sabha MP Amrinder Singh Raja Warring.

Justice Jasgurpreet Singh Puri passed the interim direction after counsel for Warring submitted that the Commission Chairman had been “directly interfering in the investigation process” of the FIR registered on November 4 under the provisions of the BNS the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, (Amendment 2015).

The petitioner’s counsel submitted that allegations surfaced – during the course of canvassing for the party’s candidate – over a speech made by Warring allegedly referring to a person belonging to the Scheduled Caste community during the Tarn Taran Assembly by-election.

Relying on the English transcript of a video uploaded on YouTube — produced and shown in court— counsel argued that the Chairman summoned the Deputy Superintendent of Police who is the Investigating Officer and questioned him regarding his whereabouts and raids, amounting to direct intervention in the probe. The petitioner was represented in the matter by senior advocates Bipan Ghai and P. S. Ahluwalia, along with counsel Nikhil Ghai, Joban Singh Dhaliwal, Siddharth Sihag and Anish Kansal.

It was submitted that the Commission is empowered under Section 10 of the Punjab State Commission for Scheduled Castes Act, 2004, to conduct its own investigation for the purpose of making recommendations to the State government. It had “no authority of law to interfere in the investigation process” carried out by the police in a registered FIR.

Counsel referred to the decisions, which held that Commissions were having purely recommendatory powers and no jurisdiction to interfere in an ongoing criminal investigation or order reinvestigation or cancellation of FIRs.

After viewing the video in court, the Bench noted it would not comment on its authenticity. However, “considering the submissions made,” the Court recorded its prima facie view that “such kind of statutory authority including that of the respondent is not empowered to interfere in the investigation being conducted by the police pursuant to an FIR registered by them.”

Issuing notice of motion, Justice Puri directed that the Commission Chairman, in the meanwhile, “shall not interfere by any means whatsoever in the investigation process being conducted by the Investigating Officer” in the FIR.

The State counsel, Additional Advocate-General Chanchal Singla accepted notice and was asked to immediately supply the order to the Commission and its Chairman. The case will now come up for further hearing on December 11.