ANI
Punjab and Haryana High Court gave strict instructions to the Advocate General that junior officers should not be made scapegoats in this case. In response the AG claimed that the SSP was unaware of the interview. The court responded by asking how it was possible for the SSP to remain unaware of Lawrence Bishnoi’s activities, especially given his high-profile status and security cover.
During the hearing in the controversial interview case of Lawrence Bishnoi, the Punjab and Haryana High Court strongly reprimanded the Punjab government. The Advocate General represented Punjab, where the court sharply criticized its handling of the case. Questions were raised as to why no action was taken against senior officers including the Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP) and the Superintendent of Police (SP). The court asked whether the junior officer could have arranged for Lawrence’s interview alone? Punjab and Haryana High Court gave strict instructions to the Advocate General that junior officers should not be made scapegoats in this case. In response the AG claimed that the SSP was unaware of the interview. The court responded by asking how it was possible for the SSP to remain unaware of Lawrence Bishnoi’s activities, especially given his high-profile status and security cover.
The court further ordered that departmental action be initiated against senior officials as well, warning that it may need to intervene if the government fails to act. The court reiterated that from the very beginning it had emphasized that accountability should not fall only on junior officers. Despite this, the government took action only against lower level officials. The court sought clarification as to why no action was taken against the SSP despite its earlier instructions.
The High Court has now directed the Director General of Police (DGP) to file an affidavit explaining why Lawrence Bishnoi was repeatedly brought to Punjab and why the interview was not held in a Punjab jail, as earlier stated by the authorities. Was suggested. The court said it had become clear that the interview was done with the involvement of police officers.
