Old memories- Double standard of Haryana Police- those blocked rail tracks for reservation were requested by police to lift blockade- peaceful agitators protesting acquisition of land were lathicharged and teargassed,

Gustakhi Maaf Haryana: Pawan Kumar Bansal

Recalls Old Fault Lines
The Haryana Police’s contrasting responses to different protests have once again come under scrutiny, reviving memories of past incidents that raise questions about consistency in law enforcement.
Fourteen years ago, farmers from Khedisadh village in Rohtak—then the home turf of Chief Minister Bhupinder Singh Hooda—launched an agitation against the acquisition of their land for the development of an Industrial Model Township. The protest was led by Ramesh Dalal, a known political rival of Hooda.
Around the same period, another group of agitating farmers had blocked railway tracks to press for reservation in government jobs. During the unrest, police firing resulted in the death of one protester, following which supporters led by Dalal attempted to install his statue.
Eyewitness accounts and reports from the time indicate a markedly restrained approach by the police toward those blocking railway tracks. Then Director General of Police Ranjiv Dalal was seen appealing with folded hands to protesters to lift the blockade.
In contrast, the agitation led by Dalal in Khedisadh saw a more forceful response. Police registered cases under multiple sections of the IPC, alleging that nearly 100 individuals, including women, armed with lathis, sticks, and stones, attacked police personnel. The FIR stated that despite warnings, the protesters resorted to stone-pelting, prompting a lathi charge and the use of tear gas to disperse the crowd.
Dalal, who had also contested the Rohtak Lok Sabha election against Hooda, faced a police crackdown, with authorities launching a manhunt for his arrest. However, he received relief from the court when Rohtak Additional District and Sessions Judge Shalini Nagpal granted him anticipatory bail.
In a significant observation, the court underscored the importance of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution, noting that arrest should not be made merely on allegations. The judgment, citing the Law Commission’s 41st report, highlighted concerns over the misuse of legal provisions by influential individuals to target political opponents.
Meanwhile, Zile Singh have questioned the apparent inconsistency, pointing out that Section 144 was not imposed during the railway blockade protests, while peaceful land-acquisition protesters faced police action. Allegations of political influence over police conduct have further fueled the debate.
The episode continues to be cited as an example of perceived double standards in handling public protests in Haryana, a debate that remains relevant in current times.Tailpiece.Shalini Nagpal was recently promoted as Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court.