Old memories: Justice Madaan Probe Seen as Delay Tactic, Not Decisive Action.

Gustakhi Maaf Haryana — By Pawan Kumar Bansal

Old memories: Justice Madaan Probe Seen as Delay Tactic, Not Decisive Action.

Old memories: Justice Madaan Probe seen as delayed tacit – not decisive action – issue of Land acquisition and subsequent release to builder during Hooda,s tenure as CM

The Haryana government’s decision to refer the contentious issue of land acquisition and its subsequent release in Rohtak district—dating back to the tenure of former Chief Minister Bhupinder Singh Hooda—to Justice R.S. Madaan marks a notable departure from Chief Minister Manohar Lal Khattar’s earlier commitment to order a CBI probe.
This shift, observers suggest, is unlikely to be incidental. Instead, it appears to be a calculated bureaucratic intervention—reportedly conceived by a senior IAS officer—aimed at insulating the government from potential political fallout. Khattar had publicly announced a CBI inquiry and was believed to be under considerable pressure from party leadership, making the reversal particularly striking.
India’s bureaucratic system equips its top officials to manage crises with precision, often functioning as a buffer between political leadership and public scrutiny. In this case, the appointment of Justice Madaan appears to have provided the Chief Minister with temporary political cover.
However, concerns persist regarding both the intent and effectiveness of such an inquiry. Past experience indicates that commissions of inquiry frequently seek extensions, prolonging proceedings by several months. Establishing intent—especially in complex administrative matters involving multiple departments—is inherently difficult and time-consuming. Determining accountability becomes even more challenging in the absence of the statutory powers and investigative mechanisms available under the Commissions of Inquiry Act.
Even if Justice Madaan were to find evidence implicating political figures or bureaucrats, the authority to initiate further action—such as referring the case to the Central Bureau of Investigation—would remain solely with the state government.
A key question being raised across political, media, and administrative circles is this: when, as per statements attributed to senior officials such as Rajesh Khullar, an inquiry conducted under the supervision of the Supreme Court of India had already identified procedural irregularities in the land release process, why has the matter not been referred to the CBI for a deeper investigation into intent and accountability?
The government maintains that the earlier inquiry officer had expressed limitations in establishing intent, citing the involvement of as many as fifteen departments. This raises a critical concern: what additional authority or resources have been provided to Justice Madaan to complete such a complex task within a stipulated two-month timeframe?
It is pertinent to note that the CBI has previously demonstrated its investigative capability by filing a comprehensive chargesheet in the widely discussed Manesar land release case. Given the sensitivity and scale of the present matter, many argue that only an agency like the CBI—or a fully empowered commission—can ensure a thorough, credible, and time-bound investigation.
As matters stand, the Madaan probe risks being perceived less as a mechanism for accountability and more as an exercise in delay.