Punjab & Haryana High Court to Examine Haryana Government’s Role in 2017 Panchkula Dera Sacha Sauda Violence

On 25 August 2017, widespread riots erupted in Panchkula after the conviction of Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh, chief of Dera Sacha Sauda, for rape. Supporters of the Dera, allegedly armed, created violent disturbances, leading to the destruction of property worth Rs 118 crore and the death of 32 people.

Issues to be Heard by the Full Bench

The Court will consider submissions on critical questions including:

1. Maintainability of preventive public interest litigation in matters relating to law and order and public order, traditionally handled by law enforcement.

2. The scope of jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 to determine compensation for damages caused by the violence and arson in Panchkula and other parts of Punjab and Haryana.

3. The recoverability of expenses related to loss, damages, security force mobilization, and costs from defaulters.

4. Whether the State of Haryana failed in its duty to prevent the mass gathering of crowds and if there was any complicity by the State with the agitators.

Submissions by Amicus Curiae and State Representatives

Senior Advocate Anupam Gupta, acting as Amicus Curiae, urged the Court to address the constitutional questions, emphasizing that the State was hand-in-glove with the Dera. He asserted the importance of judicial intervention beyond mere compensation quantification, which can be left to Tribunals constituted under special laws.

The Punjab Government, through Additional Advocate General Chanchal Singla, highlighted expenses of Rs 169 crore spent on security and damage control, including Rs 50 crore for CRPF deployment, arguing these fall outside the scope of the special laws enacted post-incident and called for the appointment of an independent Tribunal.

Court’s Directions and Procedural Developments

1. The Court decided to hear submissions on compensation and security force deployment costs.

2. The Punjab Government was directed to file an affidavit regarding any claims for compensation from other institutions.

3. On 29 August 2017, the Court had constituted Special Investigation Teams (SITs) to monitor violence-related cases and restrained both states from cancelling FIRs without Court approval.

4. The Court also framed issues on the appropriate use of police force during the riots and the compensation payable to victims.

5. In April 2025, the Court refused further adjournments and asked parties to clarify if the issues remained live or had become infructuous over time.

Case Title: Ravinder Singh Dhull v. State of Haryana and others