The Supreme Court, on March 24, agreed to examine a plea challenging the Madhya Pradesh High Court's decision that refused to direct the state government to present the Jain Commission Report on the 2017 Mandsaur farmer protest shooting before the legislative assembly.

A bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta issued notice regarding the petition. The plea challenges the High Court's order, which had dismissed the demand to table the report before the legislative assembly.

Legal Background and Petitioner's Argument

Before the High Court, the petitioner argued that under Section 3(4) of the Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952, the state government was obligated to lay the report before the legislative assembly within six months. The petition sought a writ of mandamus directing the government to fulfill this requirement.

Read Also: Supreme Court Contempt Petition Filed Against Punjab Officials Over Farmers' Eviction

Section 3(4) of the Act states:

"The appropriate Government shall cause to be laid before each House of Parliament or, as the case may be, the Legislature of the State, the report, if any, of the Commission on the inquiry made by the Commission under sub-section (1) together with a memorandum of the action taken thereon, within a period of six months of the submission of the report by the Commission to the appropriate Government."

However, the High Court rejected the plea, citing three key reasons:

1. No member of the legislative assembly had formally requested the report, which they could have done through existing legal mechanisms.
2. The six-month deadline for submitting the report had expired years ago.
3. The 1952 Act does not prescribe consequences for non-compliance with the six-month timeframe.

Read Also: Supreme Court Sets Legal Precedent on Acquittal of Innocent Bystanders in Group Clashes

The court also stated:

"The purpose of the inquiry was to understand the circumstances of the incident and suggest preventive measures for the future. Matters related to police action or farmers' response are covered under FIRs and criminal cases."

Supreme Court Challenge

The petitioners presented several arguments before the Supreme Court, primarily asserting that the High Court failed to recognize the mandatory nature of Section 3(4). They contended that:

1. The principle of 'delays and laches' does not apply in this case as it involves public interest and constitutional rights.
2. Section 3(4) of the 1952 Act creates a legal obligation on the government to table the report within the prescribed period.
3. The High Court overlooked that the government's failure to fulfill this duty warranted judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Read Also: Supreme Court Grants Interim Protection to Media MD in Telangana Phone Tapping Case, Directs Cooperation with Investigation

The plea further stated:

"The High Court did not appreciate that Section 3(4) of the Act creates a mandatory statutory obligation upon the Government, which has been completely disregarded. This failure is subject to judicial review."

Background: Mandsaur Farmer Protest

In 2017, farmers in Mandsaur District, Madhya Pradesh, launched protests against rising costs and unfavorable government policies. On June 6, 2017, tensions escalated, and police used force against the protestors, leading to the deaths of five farmers and injuries to several others.

According to the plea, at 12:45 PM, near Parasnath Choupaty, approximately 12 km from Mandsaur city, police opened fire on protesting farmers, resulting in two deaths. Another round of firing at a different location led to three more fatalities. The police claimed they fired in self-defense.

Read Also: 'Bulldozer Actions' Violate Constitution and Rule of Law: Justice Ujjal Bhuyan

Jain Commission Report

Following the incident, the state government appointed Justice J.K. Jain to lead an inquiry commission to examine whether the police force used was justified under the circumstances. The Jain Commission submitted its findings to the government on June 13, 2018.

However, despite the passage of nearly six years, the report has not been presented before the legislative assembly, leading to the legal challenge currently under review by the Supreme Court.

Appearance : Mr Vivek K Tankha, Senior Advocate with Dr. Sarvam Ritam Khare AoR

Case Details : Paras Saklecha v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. diary no. 1519/2025