Farmers Protest | Supreme Court Refuses To Stay Judicial Probe Into Protester's Death, Says Fair Investigation Needed

Singh lost his life on February 21 while protesting, inter-alia, for the demand of a law guaranteeing Minimum Support Price (MSP) for crops on the Punjab-Haryana border. Alleging that he lost his life after being hit by a bullet fired by the Haryana police, his family approached the High Court.

In the order passed by the Punjab & Haryana High Court, Acting Chief Justice (ACJ) GS Sandhawalia and Justice Lapita Banerji said that the investigation cannot be handed over to Punjab or Haryana "for obvious reasons". The High Court formed a three-membered committee headed by Justice Jaishree Thakur, Retired Judge of Punjab & Haryana High Court, who will be assisted by Parmod Ban, ADGP, Punjab, and Amitabh Singh Dhillon, ADGP, Haryana. Against this backdrop, the appeal was filed before the Top Court.

Challenging the High Court order, the Haryana Government approached the Supreme Court. The matter was placed before Justices Surya Kant and KV Viswanathan.

At the outset, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submitted that though the incident took place in the Haryana Jurisdiction, Singh was taken to the nearby hospital which was in Punjab. At this, Justice Kant asserted that undoubtedly, there was a homicidal act. There was no FIR registered (in Haryana) and on the other hand, Punjab Police registered a Zero FIR after a week. In this context, it may be noted that the FIR has been transferred to the Haryana Police.

However, Mehta asked if the police would have to face PIL for each incident and how they would control law and order. 

Notwithstanding, Justice Kant did not change his stance. “Family of the victim and the petitioners before the High Court, they have some apprehensions.,” he said.

Mehta asserted that if this is the threat hanging, then no officer will be able to discharge their duty fearlessly. In his attempt to persuade the Court, he submitted that in situations where people are armed with lethal weapons, police will not be able to do anything. He alleged that 67 policemen were injured during the protests and the protesters came with armed weapons. “If this is the way that the committee will be appointed for every incident, then what will be the morale of people who are here on the law and order situation.”

When Mehta argued that it is not the function of the judges to decide the investigation, Justice Kant replied that even in the past, former judges were appointed to infuse impartiality and transparency.

Mehta also asked if a judicial committee could decide if the actions taken by the police on the ground were commensurate with the threat from the agitators.

However, the Court made it clear that it was not unusual that this had been done, and even in the Lakhimpur Kheri Case, the former judge was appointed. Justice Kant also orally said that in a case where the two police agencies of two states are likely to take a stand that is at variance from each other, the High Court is expected to appoint a neutral umpire.

Ultimately, the Court refused to interfere with the impugned order today, saying that the HC, in its wisdom, has appointed a former HC judge. The Court also said that the matter was coming before the High Court on April 10 and listed the matter on April 19.