Ram Rahim Case: High Court To Hear On Whether Haryana Govt Was Complicit In 2017 Panchkula Dera Violence

In a pivotal development stemming from the 2017 Panchkula Dera violence case, the High Court will now hear on question whether the Haryana government was complicit in or failed to prevent—the mass gathering of Dera Sacha Sauda supporters that led to one of the most violent episodes in recent state history.

On 25 August 2017, widespread rioting in Haryana's Panchkula broke out after Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh, the chief of Dera Sacha Sauda, was convicted of rape. The Dera is situated in Panchkula and on day of pronouncement of the judgement Ram Rahim's supporters had allegedly come armed with weapons.

Reportedly, properties worth Rs 118 Crore were destroyed and 32 people lost their lives.

A full bench comprising Chief Justice Sheel Nagu, Justice Vinod S. Bhardwaj, Justice Vikram Aggarwal was hearing the PIL on several issues relating to violence and considered the submissions of Amicus Curiae Senior Advocate Anupam Gupta who insisted the Court to hear on the questions framed by the Court in 2017. 

Hence, the Court will hear submissions on the following questions:

In what conditions and situations would preventive public interest litigation be maintainable before the High Court in a matter relating to law and order and public order which primarily is the domain of the law enforcing authorities?

What would be the scope of jurisdiction of this Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 to determine the compensation payable for the damages, directly or indirectly, to the public at large and the private property on account of acts of violence and arson in Panchkula and other parts of the States of Punjab and Haryana?

Whether the expenses for the loss and damages that have been caused are liable to be recovered from the defaulter and if so, whether it would include expenses incurred in damage to public and private properties, harassment, costs and the arrangements for mobilization of security forces and the actual security operations?

Whether the State of Haryana has failed to perform its duty in preventing mass scale gathering of crowds in Panchkula and other parts of the State of Punjab and Haryana on 25/26.08.2017. In consequence of the above, it would require examination whether there was any complicity on the part of the State of Haryana with the agitators?

In present hearing, while the Court insisted that the issues including amount of compensation should be decided by the Tribunal constituted under the Special Laws, Amicus Curiae Senior Advocate Anupam Gupta submitted the special laws are only for the quantification of the compensation. "My Lord may not deal with this case as many cases which clogged the docket , I suspect it is giving anxiety to close the case feeling it is clogged Court's docket, it is an extremely sensitive matter, those questions framed by the Court from constitutional perspective..."

Chief Justice responded that there is a Tribunal constituted, now that there are separate laws (Haryana Prevention of Defacement of Property Act and Punjab Prevention of Damage to Public and Private Property Act, 2014) to deal with damages.

"My Lord, 240 cases were registered and more than 100 cases have resulted into acquittals, please call for records...the State bent backwards to help the Dera for political reasons," Gupta responded.

"Do you expect us to indulge in the area damages?" the Chief Justice asked at this juncture.

"I am expecting my Lord, it is not just question of quantification, principles of culpability and accountability emerged in those six question, those questions my lord may resolve, that's the question of law on constitutional principles, the quantification of compensation can be left to the Tribunals, otherwise it will lead to Self-abnegation of judicial power, nothing less than a tragedy... I am addressing a full bench headed by Chief Justice who has a very high moral quotient...it will be a self-inflicted moral wound and question on the credibility of this Court," answered Gupta.

He further added that, "State was hand-in glove with the Dera." 

Chief Justice then asked which are the issues that still survive?.

The Amicus Curiae referred to three questions. Addl. AG Chanchal Singla, appearing for the Punjab Government, added that the issue relating to the expenses incurred by the Punjab Government on the deployment of security forces in 11 districts of Punjab, due to the violence in Panchkula, also needs to be decided, as the Punjab Government spent Rs. 169 crores on security and damage control, including Rs. 50 crores solely on the deployment of CRPF.

Referring to Supreme Court guidelines in In Re: Destruction Of Public&Pvt. Prop vs State Of A.P. & Ors , Addl AG Singla argued that the damages cannot be decided by the Tribunal constituted under the Special Laws because they came into force post the incident and the case of Punjab Government is not covered by the State Legislation, hence the High Court should appoint an independent Tribunal for the same.

Considering the submissions, the Court decided to hear the issue in relation to compensation to be incurred for damage and deployment of Security forces caused.

The Court also asked the Punjab Government to submit on Affidavit whether it has claimed compensation for mobilisation of forces from any other institution.

On 29 August 2017, the High Court ordered the constitution of Special Investigation Teams for monitoring cases registered for the incidents of violence in Punjab and Haryana on the day Dera Sacha Sauda chief was convicted in a rape case and restrained the two state governments from canceling any FIRs without its permission.

The Court had also framed certain questions including in what situations should the police and law enforcing agencies use its full force and when should minimum force with rubber bullets, water cannons etc. should be used? And amount of compensation to be given to riot victims.

Considering the seriousness of the issue, in the last hearing (April, 2025), the court had said that no more adjournment would be entertained as for the last few dates adjournment slip was given in the case.

The Court had also stated in the order that counsel for the rival parties to first address on the issue as to whether the said issues framed are alive or have become infructuous due to efflux of time.

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

Add AG Pawan Girdhar appeared for Haryana Government.

ASG Satya Pal Jain with Senior Panel Counsel Dheeraj Jain appeared for Union Government

Senior Advocate Chetan Mittal appeared for Shah Satnam ji Research and Development foundation