Farmers' Protest | Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain Ex-BJP MLA's Plea To Remove Protesters From Delhi Borders; Asks Him To Approach HC

Social worker and former Bharatiya Janata Party MLA Nand Kishore Garg, in a bid to clear the border areas, approached the apex court with this plea.

However, a bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and KV Viswanathan refused to hear the PIL. Instead, they directed the petitioner to address the matter in the Punjab and Haryana High Court, where the issue is currently under consideration.

What did the petitioner argue?

Dr Garg's petition, filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India through Advocate-on-Record Mukesh Kumar Singh & Co, prayed for the removal of farmers who have been obstructing arterial roads and highways connecting Delhi with states like Punjab, Haryana, Uttar Pradesh, and Rajasthan. He argued that these protests have caused great difficulties for the general public, impacting their livelihoods, health emergencies, educational activities, and other essential tasks.

He expressed concern that such protests have become a recurring issue, holding the common people hostage to what he termed 'illegal intransigence' by farmers. The petition argued that the protests are a direct assault on the rule of law, which is the foundation of the Indian democracy -

“It is submitted that such type of agitation or protest has become a déjà vu, and the common people of the country are being held hostage to the illegal intransigence by forcing the government to enact new law which suits to their demands at the cost of the inconvenience of the common people. It is submitted that such type of protest is direct assault to the rule of law which is the foundation of our democratic country.…The protest is not only held in undesignated areas but also there is additional blockage in the public way which causes great inconvenience to the commuters.”

Citing legal precedents and court decisions regarding the right to protest in public spaces, Dr Garg stressed that there is no absolute right to hold such protests and it is subject to reasonable restrictions. He also emphasised the need for a balance between the rights of protesters and the general public -

“The protesters are flouting the rules including the order and judgment passed by this court from time to time holding that the public places must not be allowed to obstruct the fundamental rights of the other common citizens of the country. The antisocial elements masquerading as farmers have also gathered on the borders of NCT of Delhi with thousands of agricultural tractors and trollies, [bullying] the government agencies, raising anti-national slogans, tearing and kicking the national flag with a view to cease the normal activities by the common people.”

Not only an injunction against protesting farmers, but the petitioner also sought 'comprehensive and exhaustive guidelines' relating to restrictions on such protests and agitations that lead to obstruction of public places.

Background

The Supreme Court's refusal to entertain this latest PIL comes as thousands of Indian farmers have resumed their march to Delhi amidst heavy barricading and intensifying police presence, in an effort to push the government to meet their demands. Previously, the strike had been suspended at the end of February after the death of a young farmer during the protest.

Earlier this month, the Supreme Court had also declined to hear another PIL regarding the farmers' protest. The petition urged the Centre and state governments to address the reasonable demands of the protesting farmers and allow them to travel to Delhi. The petition highlighted the alleged harsh detention of farmers from Punjab who sought to reach Delhi in their private vehicles.

In response to this petition, the bench of Justices Surya Kant and KV Viswanathan expressed concerns about the filing approach, emphasizing that such cases should not be brought to the apex court for mere 'publicity purposes.' The bench suggested that the petitioner pursue the matter in the Punjab and Haryana High Court, where it was already being considered. Consequently, the bench allowed the petitioner to withdraw the case.

The farmers' protests, which have gained momentum once again, are an offshoot of the 2020 protests against the government's three proposed farm bills that relaxed rules relating to the purchase, sale, and storage of farm produce. Although the union government scrapped these proposed rules in November 2021, after months of protest, farmers now claim that the Centre has not fulfilled other promises made to them, including the implementation of a minimum support price for all crops.

Case Details

Nand Kishore Garg v. Union of India & Ors. | Writ Petition (Civil) No. 162 of 2024