The Supreme Court has strongly reprimanded the Haryana government for failing to cooperate with a court-appointed committee investigating the alleged social boycott of Dalits in Bhatia village, Tehsil Hansi, Hissar district. The court made it clear that continued non-cooperation could result in contempt proceedings against the state authorities.

Background of the Case

The case was brought before the Supreme Court by petitioners from the Dalit community, who alleged that they had been subjected to a social boycott since 2017. The incident reportedly began when a group of Dalit boys was assaulted by members of the dominant community over the use of a public hand pump.

To ensure an impartial investigation, the Supreme Court, in October 2024, constituted a two-member independent committee comprising Shri Vikram Chand Goyal (Former DGP, 1975 batch, UP) and Mr. Kamlendra Prasad (Former DGP, 1981 batch, UP). The committee was tasked with conducting an independent inquiry and submitting a status report after allegations surfaced that the Haryana police had given a clean chit to six out of the seven accused despite 28 Dalit victims signing a complaint.

Read Also:- Supreme Court to Examine Legality of Maharashtra Law Reducing Co-operative Society Directors

Despite the court's directive, the Haryana government has not extended the necessary logistical support, including covering expenses for the committee’s investigation. Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves, representing the petitioners, informed the court that the committee had written three letters expressing their willingness to visit the site but were unable to do so due to a lack of support from the state.

Justice Sundresh, addressing the state's counsel, stated:

"What is this, counsel? You have to cooperate. See the letter dated 21.1.25... Is this the way the order of the Court has to be implemented?"

Advocate Arjun Garg, representing the Haryana government, claimed that he had not received any such letters. However, Justice Bindal pointed out that these letters were already included in the office report and should have been acknowledged by the state's legal team.

The Supreme Court took a strong stance against Haryana’s inaction, stating:

"We have perused the letter dated January 21, 2025, written by Shri Kamlendra Prasad, DGP (retired). The aforesaid communication depicts a very sorry state of affairs. Despite efforts being undertaken, the State is not willing to cooperate. Counsel for State assures court all cooperation will be extended, including requisite cost and travel arrangements for the stay of the individuals. We make it clear that continued non-cooperation of the State would lead to the initiation of contempt proceedings. Post the matter after six weeks."

Read Also:- Supreme Court Rejects Reduction in Compensation Multiplier for Foreign Earners in Accident Claims

The petitioners have alleged that the social boycott against the Dalit community was officially announced by the village chowkidar on July 2, 2017. According to the petition:

"On 2.7.17, the village chowkidar of Village Bhatia made a public announcement in the basti of the Scheduled Caste community, restricting their entry into the residential areas and fields of the dominant Brahmin community. On the very same day, access to ration, dairy shops, and saloons was stopped. Moreover, the water supply to the Dalit Scheduled Caste community was also cut off."

The Dalit community, refusing to withdraw their FIR against the accused, allegedly faced severe repercussions, including the social boycott initiated by both the dominant community and, as the petition claims, with the involvement of the local police.

The petition further states:

"From 7.7.17 onwards, the Dalit community had registered a series of FIRs and complaints with the police over the continuing social boycott and threats..."

Initially, the petitioners approached the High Court, seeking a direction to transfer the investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). They argued that the local police and investigative officers were biased in favor of the dominant community, making a fair investigation impossible. The petitioners also sought a court order to put an end to the ongoing social boycott.

Case Details: JAI BHAGWAN AND ORS. v. THE STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS|W.P.(Crl.) No. 293/2019