The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Tuesday heard a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) concerning jail reforms and law and order in Punjab, with the state seeking its closure on the ground that its remit had expanded beyond its original scope.However, amicus curiae Tanu Bedi urged the court to continue monitoring the matter as a “continuing mandamus”, submitting that the case had been under consideration for over two years and that earlier orders had remained undisturbed even before the Supreme Court.The matter came up before a division bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sanjiv Berry. Senior advocate Puneet Bali appeared for the Punjab government.At the outset, the state pointed out certain factual corrections in a previous order, submitting that a draft transfer policy for police officers was pending approval with the home department and would subsequently be placed before the Cabinet. It also clarified that additional patrolling vehicles had already been procured and would be operational by March 31.Bali submitted that the PIL, which was initially taken up suo motu by an earlier division bench headed by Justice Anupinder Singh Grewal, who superannuated on March 9 this year, had achieved its primary objectives. He said the proceedings began with a focus on jail reforms but later expanded to cover issues such as a controversial interview of gangster Lawrence Bishnoi from custody, gang-related violence, and policing measures.Detailing the state’s response, Bali said a Special Investigation Team (SIT) had conducted an inquiry into the Bishnoi interview and submitted multiple reports, leading to disciplinary action against erring officials. A deputy superintendent of police was dismissed from service, while departmental proceedings were initiated against others.On concerns relating to law and order, including targeted killings and alleged police encounters, the state informed the court that affidavits had been filed by the director general of police outlining steps taken. These included registration of FIRs, constitution of SITs, and initiation of judicial or magisterial inquiries into encounter incidents, in line with Supreme Court guidelines.Story continues below this adThe court was also apprised of measures such as the establishment of an anti-gangster police station with statewide jurisdiction, the introduction of helplines, the formulation of standard operating procedures to tackle extortion calls, and proposals for installing over 12,000 CCTV cameras across urban areas. A manpower audit and augmentation of patrolling infrastructure were also underway, with a deadline of March 31.Bali argued that the scope of the PIL had expanded excessively over time. “This cannot be an open-ended proceeding monitoring every aspect of policing in the state,” he submitted, urging the bench to close the matter after perusing the reports placed on record, including those in sealed cover.The hearing also saw submissions from counsel representing a dismissed police officer, DDP Gursher Singh, who contended that he had been made a scapegoat in the SIT probe and that his challenge to the dismissal was pending. His counsel claimed that Bishnoi’s custody was being supervised by the anti-gangster task force and not the Crime Investigation Agency as alleged. The bench, however, indicated that such issues would be taken up separately and should not prejudice pending proceedings.Next hearing on March 24Amicus curiae Tanu Bedi, however, opposed closure of the proceedings, submitting that the PIL had evolved in response to emerging concerns flagged by the court itself and could not be viewed as an unwarranted expansion. Bedi said the matter had been monitored for over two years, during which multiple orders had addressed jail reforms, the conduct of police officials, and broader law and order issues, all of which had been tested before the Supreme Court without any interference.Story continues below this adBedi further suggested that, given the continuity and complexity of the proceedings, the court may consider retaining institutional memory by associating a judge who had earlier dealt with the matter, noting that one of the judges from the earlier bench continued to be part of the high court.Taking note of the submissions, the bench said it would consider whether continued monitoring was required. The court deferred further hearing to March 24, when pending applications in the matter are also scheduled to be taken up.