- Home
- /
- News Updates
- /
- Haryana Progressive Farmers' Union...
Haryana Progressive Farmers' Union Serves Contempt Notice On State CM, Demanding Withdrawal Of Statement On Police Lathi-Charge On Protesting Farmers
Mehal Jain
23 Sep 2020 3:54 AM GMT
The 'Haryana Progressive Farmers Union- Sabka Mangal Ho', an advocacy group of the farmers has served a NOTICE FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT on Haryana CM Manohar Lal Khattar for making statement on the lathicharge on farmers (in the backdrop of the mass protest against the three Ordinances regulating farming and agriculture sector), pending the enquiry which was directed by the P & H High...
The 'Haryana Progressive Farmers Union- Sabka Mangal Ho', an advocacy group of the farmers has served a NOTICE FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT on Haryana CM Manohar Lal Khattar for making statement on the lathicharge on farmers (in the backdrop of the mass protest against the three Ordinances regulating farming and agriculture sector), pending the enquiry which was directed by the P & H High Court.
On September 18, The Punjab & Haryana High Court has directed the DGP, Haryana to 'sensitize' police officials performing duties during these protests, about the Guidelines for Police, laid down by the Supreme Court in the DK Basu Case. The Bench of Justice Arun Monga was hearing a plea filed by the Haryana Progressive Farmers Union, alleging that the during the farmers' protest against the Agriculture Ordinances on September 10, 2020, few unknown persons, some in police uniform and others without, resorted to lathi charge to dispel the crowd. In the said incident, numerous farmers, including many old aged, were allegedly injured by unknown police officials but even the basic medical care was not provided. Justice Monga disposed of the plea as he remarked that no doubt the procedural safeguards envisaged in the DK Basu Guidelines have to be observed by the Police administration, in letter and spirit. He said that he expects the competent authority to look into the matter and pass appropriate orders, "as expeditiously as possible".
Against the backdrop of this judgment, the notice of contempt, through advocate Pardeep Kumar Rapria, alleges lowering of the authority of the High Court by the CM's statements. It is contended that such conduct culminates into the interference in the administration of justice.
"On 10.09.2020, few unknown persons, some in police uniform and others without, resorted to lathi charge on protesting farmers protesting against three agriculture ordinances; at Kurukshetra.The MP/MLAs; even ruling party; including the Haryana Deputy Chief Minister condemned the police's use of force on agitating farmers and demanded a probe into the incident. MLAs and representative of Dy. C.M. also visited the house of injured and granted financial help", the notice narrates.
It further avers that in view of the above, the farmers' advocacy group, through a Legal Notice dated 12/09/2020 to the Home Minister, DGP and Secretary, Haryana Govt, Home Department, had sought enquiry into the lathicharge incident; especially by person/s without uniform.
In view of the emergent situation of law and problem, the aforesaid farmers' union had approached the High Court seeking various reliefs including the in-depth enquiry into the incident.
In view of the emergent situation of law and problem, the aforesaid farmers' union had approached the High Court seeking various reliefs including the in-depth enquiry into the incident.
Stating that at present the matter is pending for enquiry by DGP Haryana, the notice expresses shock at the CM's statements made to the media on:21/09/2020; to the effect that:
"People need to understand what exactly a lathicharge is. When a magistrate accompanying the police issues orders, the police resort to a lathicharge..."
"This was merely a one-off incident and does not come under the definition of lathicharge,"
"I can understand that one has to say certain things to please farmers, but that does not mean one should blow small incidents out of proportion,"
"When media persons asked: whether there would be a probe into the lathicharge, you made a categorical statement: 'What I am doing now before you is an enquiry. It has been proven that it was a small incident, where some cops exercised their right to self-defence against people on tractors who tried to harm them physically by running them over. There was no lathicharge. One person in civil dress was holding danda. A person from CIA/Reserved force need not wear uniform. This is not a big incident being blown out of proportion'", reads the notice.
"People need to understand what exactly a lathicharge is. When a magistrate accompanying the police issues orders, the police resort to a lathicharge..."
"This was merely a one-off incident and does not come under the definition of lathicharge,"
"I can understand that one has to say certain things to please farmers, but that does not mean one should blow small incidents out of proportion,"
"When media persons asked: whether there would be a probe into the lathicharge, you made a categorical statement: 'What I am doing now before you is an enquiry. It has been proven that it was a small incident, where some cops exercised their right to self-defence against people on tractors who tried to harm them physically by running them over. There was no lathicharge. One person in civil dress was holding danda. A person from CIA/Reserved force need not wear uniform. This is not a big incident being blown out of proportion'", reads the notice.
The notice seeks to remind the CM the constitutional position that a person after becoming Chief Minister does not belong to any particular political party; rather he is the head of the State to aid and advise the Governor to run the affairs of a State. "Therefore, while holding a constitutional post you exercise substantial control and influence over the police administration and general administration. My client is shocked at your statement that a person from CIA/Reserved force need not wear uniform", it is stated.
It is advanced that the Supreme Court directions in the DK Basu case would apply with equal force to the other governmental agencies including all police forces, except intelligence agencies. "Hence, your above stated wrong statements; in open press conference; have not only prejudiced the pending enquiry and have sent wrong signal to the police force promoting indiscipline in the police force, but also amounts to lowering the authority of Hon'ble High Court and interference in the administration of justice, in reference to the judgement dated: 18th September, 2020 in CWP-14874-2020", reads the notice.
The notice further casts suspicion on the kind of enquiry that may be conducted by the DGP in view of "the statement of the person holding the constitutional post to the effect that, 'What I am doing now before you is an enquiry'". "Does it not amount to usurping the powers of DGP, supposed to conduct in-depth enquiry as per the directions of the Hon'ble High Court?", it is asked.
In view of the above, the farmers' union has called upon the CM "to save the grace of your constitutional post; by withdrawing your statement reported in media, appearing to be actuated by inadvertence and ignorance and direct the DGP to conduct enquiry without being prejudiced by your statement".
It is urged that the withdrawal of statement may be communicated within a week of receipt of this notice, failing which, the Union shall initiate requisite steps for contempt of court under THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971.
Next Story
