Shambhu Border Blockade | 'Resolve Farmers Protest Amicably' : Supreme Court Gives Time To Punjab & Haryana To Propose Names For Committee

"We want a very smooth beginning in terms of dialogue...please think of names who are not...there are very good, very seasoned practical personalities in the country who have experience to their credit...and they know the in and outs of the problem...please thing of some neutral personality. It will inspire more confidence in the farmers. They keep on saying that judges should also be involved, judges are not experts...but there are former judges, and there can be members from the bar. Try to resolve it," orally observed Justice Kant.

The matter was re-listed on August 12, on an assurance by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and Punjab Advocate General Gurminder Singh that the exercise of suggesting common names for the committee would be undertaken. In the meantime, the court directed that the interim arrangement (status quo of the Shambhu border blockade) shall continue.

The hearing commenced with SG Mehta informing the court that in terms of its last order, steps were being taken to suggest names for the constitution of a committee. Following this, a prayer was made by the Punjab AG that some relief may be given to vehicles permitted under the Motor Vehicles Act (this was in the context of the SG's earlier submission that protesters can't be allowed to enter with tractors and JCBs as these vehicles are prohibited on a National Highway).

The same was objected to by SG Mehta, saying that Punjab cannot make such a proposal on behalf of the farmers. Trying to impress upon the parties that the issue should be resolved amicably, Justice Kant suggested to the AG :

"Nobody should precipitate the situation...You do not need to hurt their sentiments...But as a state when you go...with a statesmanship...you try to persuade them (farmers) that as far as the tractors are concerned, machines are concerned, other agricultural equipments are concerned...let those be taken to a place where they are required".

The judge added: "In a democratic setup, yes, they have a right to voice their grievances...those grievances can be at that place also, if they want to make a representation...they (Punjab) will not object to that."

At this point, the SG averred that the State of Punjab cannot plead on behalf of farmers that the vehicles be allowed. "Farmers can say, [but] farmers are not appearing...before High Court also they did not, despite issuance of notice", he said.

Subsequently, respondent-Uday Pratap Singh (who was the petitioner before the High Court) added that the border needs to be opened, at least for access to emergent services across the states. To that extent, the bench agreed. Justice Kant orally said that an ambulance carrying patients or a car carrying senior citizens cannot be prevented.

The bench suggested that in such emergent cases, the police personnel deployed on both sides (Haryana and Punjab) can coordinate amongst themselves so that the vehicles are allowed to pass.

Ultimately, as the counsels expressed that by the next date, they would come up with common names for the committee, the matter was adjourned.

To recap, the impugned order directed Haryana government to unblock Shambhu border, which was closed in February this year to prevent the movement of protesting farmers from Punjab to Haryana. Against this order, the State approached the top Court.

Previously, the Court had expressed an intention to form a committee of independent persons which can negotiate with the farmers protesting at the border and the governments, to find a resolution to the issues.

To this effect, the Court had asked the States of Punjab and Haryana to suggest names of suitable individuals who could be included in the committee. An order was passed after the Court orally observed that it appeared to be a case of "trust deficit" between the government and the protesting farmers.

"Have you taken any initiative to negotiate with the farmers? Your ministers might go to the farmers without realising the local issues. There is a trust deficit. Why don't you have some neutral umpires? There have to be confidence-building measures."

At the same time, the Court also directed that status quo be maintained by both the States at the protest site to "prevent the flaring up of the situation at the Shambhu border."

Background

Haryana Government closed the Shambhu border in February during a farmers' protest to restrict the protesters from Punjab from entering Haryana. Subsequently, a PIL sought directions to open the border for the general public, especially businessmen, departmental store owners, and street vendors who were providing essential commodities to Ambala.

Before the High Court, Additional Advocate General for Haryana Deepak Sabharwal argued that 400-450 protesters were still sitting on the Punjab side of the highway, and they may enter Ambala and do gherao at the SP's office.

However, the Court responded to this, saying that: “men in uniform cannot be scared of them...we are living in democracy, farmers cannot be stopped from entering to Haryana...let them do the gherao”.

In its July 10 order, the High Court observed that Shambhu border is a “lifeline” for citizens' movement between Punjab and Haryana and to Delhi and Jammu & Kashmir, and its closure was causing immense inconvenience to the general public.

Therefore, the division bench of Justices GS Sandhawalia and Vikas Bahl directed both States to ensure that law and order was maintained and the highway was restored to its "original glory."

In addition to this, the Court noted that the highway was closed due to preventive measures by the Haryana Government and 5-6 months had gone by since then.

To support its findings, the Court underscored the inconvenience caused by restrictions on the free flow of transport. “The diversion which have been made is causing great inconvenience...there is no free flow of transport vehicles and buses, thus general public is in great inconvenience,” it said.

Further, the Court reasoned that earlier, it had restrained from passing any order as the gathering involved thousands. However, the number of protesting farmers had reduced to 400-500. Imperatively, it also directed Kisan Union to ensure that it abided by the law.

It may also be mentioned that another Special Leave Petition filed by the State of Haryana opposing the Punjab & Haryana High Court's order of a judicial inquiry into the death of a protesting farmer, Shubhkaran Singh, is also pending before the Top Court.

Case Details: THE STATE OF HARYANA VS. UDAY PRATAP SINGH., DIARY NO. - 30656/2024

Click Here To Read/Download Order