Nearly a decade after the violent Jat reservation agitation shook Haryana, the Punjab and Haryana High Court witnessed critical submissions today regarding the alleged lawlessness and the infamous Murthal rape allegations. Senior Advocate and amicus curiae Anupam Gupta, appearing before the Bench headed by Chief Justice Sheel Nagu, claimed that evidence in the Murthal matter was presented in a “filtered manner,” suggesting a cover-up.
Murthal Rape Case: “Sanitised Evidence”
Anupam Gupta, who had previously advocated for a CBI probe into the alleged rapes at Murthal, raised serious questions about the Special Investigation Team (SIT) led by IPS officer Mamta Singh.
-
No Victim Found: Gupta acknowledged that after 10 years, “there is no rape victim found or witness to rape.”
-
Allegations against SIT: However, he argued that the SIT head “could have been more candid.” He stated, “The evidence was sanitised out to show that nothing at all happened… much of what the SIT chief finally says is the result of a one-sided attempt of the SIT to absolve itself of all moral blame.”
Prakash Singh Committee vs. SIT Findings
Gupta drew a sharp contrast between the findings of the SIT and the report by the Centre-appointed committee led by former UP DGP Prakash Singh.
-
The Prakash Singh Report: Gupta described this document as “an elaborate… outstanding report” and urged the Bench to take it into consideration.
-
Conflict with Dhillon-led SIT: He pointed out that another SIT, headed by IPS officer Amitabh Singh Dhillon, had investigated cases from the agitation period. Gupta noted that this SIT recommended cancelling most cases, specifically in Rohtak (the agitation’s epicenter).
-
The Contradiction: “That would be in conflict with the Prakash Singh Committee report set up by the government itself,” Gupta argued, adding that the recommendation to drop these cases “does not inspire confidence.”
Background
The High Court had taken suo motu cognisance of reports regarding lawlessness during the Jat reservation agitation nearly 10 years ago. The hearings continue to scrutinize the state’s handling of the violence and the subsequent investigations.
