Recently, the Supreme Court cautioned the State of Haryana against continued non-compliance with its directives, warning that contempt proceedings could be initiated if the State failed to cooperate with a Court-appointed Committee. The matter pertained to allegations of social boycott imposed on Dalit residents of the village Bhatia, Haryana. The Court noted with concern that despite its explicit orders, the State had not provided the necessary logistical support to the inquiry panel.
The case arose from a petition filed by members of the Dalit community, alleging that they had been subjected to a social boycott since 2017 in the village Bhatia, Tehsil Hansi, district Hissar. The dispute reportedly began when Dalit boys were assaulted by individuals from the dominant community over the use of a common hand pump for drawing water. Following these events, a social boycott was allegedly imposed, restricting the Dalit residents' access to essential services, including ration supplies, dairy shops, and water resources.
To investigate these claims, the Supreme Court, in October of the previous year, constituted a two-member committee comprising Shri Vikram Chand Goyal, Former DGP (1975, UP), and Shri Kamlendra Prasad, Former DGP (1981, UP). The Committee was tasked with conducting an independent inquiry and submitting a report. This direction came after the prosecution revealed that the Haryana police had exonerated six out of seven accused persons in a complaint signed by 28 Dalit victims. The Court had also mandated that the State of Haryana extend full logistical support, including covering expenses.
During the hearing, Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves, representing the petitioners, submitted that the State of Haryana had not complied with the Court’s order. He pointed out that despite repeated communications, the inquiry committee had been unable to proceed due to the State’s failure to provide necessary logistical assistance. He emphasized that the panel had issued three letters confirming their readiness to visit the village but required the State’s cooperation.
The Bench, comprising Justice V. Ramasubramanian and Justice J. B. Pardiwala, took serious note of the State’s inaction. Justice M. M. Sundresh, addressing the State’s counsel, Advocate Arjun Garg, remarked, “What is this counsel? You have to cooperate. See the letter dated 21.01.2025... Is this the way the order of the Court has to be implemented?”
When the State’s counsel stated that he had not received any such communication, Justice Bindal countered that the letters were part of the official records and should have been acknowledged by the State.
The Court further observed, “We have perused the letter dated January 21, 2025, written by Shri Kamlendra Prasad, DGP (Retd.). The aforesaid communication depicts a very sorry state of affairs. Despite efforts being undertaken, the State is not willing to cooperate. Counsel for the State assures this Court that all necessary cooperation, including requisite costs and travel arrangements, will be extended. We make it clear that continued non-cooperation from the State will result in the initiation of contempt proceedings.”
Taking into account the lack of compliance, the Supreme Court issued a stern warning to the State of Haryana. It directed the State to provide immediate support to the inquiry panel and ensure the implementation of the Court’s order. The matter was adjourned for six weeks, with the Bench making it clear that any further delay or obstruction in the inquiry would attract contempt proceedings against the State authorities.
Picture Source :
