"There May Be Some Intelligence We Don't Know": Delhi High Court On PIL Against Singhu Border Blockade, Asks Police Commissioner To Consider

The Delhi High Court on Monday closed a public interest litigation seeking removal of blockade on National Highway 44 at Singhu Border, arguing that inconvenience is being caused to the public at large.

A division bench comprising Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela asked the petitioners, three individuals, to file a representation to the Commissioner of Delhi Police which has been directed to be treated as expeditiously as possible.

This was after the Court noted that the Delhi Police was not made a party in the PIL and that the petitioners had directly approached Court without filing a representation on the issue.

The petitioners - Shankar Mor, Sachin Aneja and Eknoor Singh, who are working in Delhi and Gurugram, submitted in the PIL that the “extensive blockade” at Singhu Border for more than seven months now was causing inconvenience to the public as they are being forced to stuck in traffic jam for hours for a distance which otherwise would have been covered in minutes.

The PIL has been filed through Advocates Sachin Miglani and Mohit Gupta.

During the hearing today, the court was informed that even though seven months have gone without any farmers' protest on Singhu Border, there were still roadblocks and barricading.

To this, the Chief Justice orally remarked that such an issue cannot be decided by the Court and that the authorities will be in a better position to give the reason for the blockade.

“There may be some intelligence (input) reason, we don't know…,” Chief Justice said, adding that a representation has to be made first.

The PIL argued that due to the blockade, even for ambulances and school buses are not being plied. It added that those working in Delhi are forced to stuck for hours due to the blockade of roads.

“…..most of these ancillary and capillary roads are broken , bumpy and precarious, and driving on these roads are quite dangerous because of which the commutcrs have to drive very carefully and slowly leading to traffic jams and the commuters are forced to stuck in traffic jams for hours for a distance which otherwise would have covered in minutes,” the PIL submitted.

It added: “Because blocking of roads by the respondents in such a casual manner for around seven months and hindering free movement of the public is not reasonable when there is no threat to law and order as no one was and is protesting at Singhu Border.”

The petitioners also submitted that blocking of roads without providing or facilitating any alternate route for safe and smooth passage and without putting proper signboards was violative of Article 19 (1)(d) of the Constitution of India.

Title: Shankar Mor & Ors v. Union of India & Anr