The Punjab and Haryana High Court has demanded records of internet suspension during the Farmer’s Protest, citing legal clarity on the matter. The court also questioned delays in a protester’s post-mortem and discussed initiatives for farmers’ socio-economic betterment. The hearing is scheduled for further consideration next week.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
CHANDIGARH: On 29th February, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has called upon both states to submit the “necessary orders suspending internet” in light of the ongoing farmers’ protests. The directive aligns with the Supreme Court’s stance in Anuradha Bhasin v Union of India, emphasizing clear laws on internet suspension. The bench, comprising Acting Chief Justice GS Sandhawalia and Justice Lapita Banerji, highlighted, “the law is very clear on suspension of internet,” urging the states to disclose the orders justifying the internet blackout.
The court also delved into two Public Interest Litigations (PILs) concerning the death of a protester on February 21, raising questions about the delay in the post-mortem report.
ALSO READ:FARMERS PROTEST | High Court Raps Protesting Farmers: Bans Use of Tractor Trolleys on Highways
“Why are you (Punjab) taking a week to conduct the post-mortem? What inquest proceedings have you taken so far? Was it a natural death?,”
-Justice Sandhawalia inquired.
The Punjab government’s counsel reported that the post-mortem had been conducted, with the findings pending, and confirmed the registration of a “Zero-FIR” under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
Furthermore, the Union government has been proactive, as evidenced by an affidavit detailing four rounds of discussions with farmer representatives and measures aimed at the “betterment of the socio-economic status of the farmer community,” including “Increment in Budget allocation and MSP at 50% over the cost production.” The farmers’ demands include a law ensuring a Minimum Support Price (MSP), among other rights.
The court also addressed the organization of protests, with ACJ GS Sandhawalia advising the Punjab Government to manage the assembly of protestors, stating-
“they have right to protest but it is subjected to reasonable restrictions.”
The issue of farmers using tractors and trolleys for protests was also scrutinized, with the ACJ noting-
“According to Motor Vehicle Act, you cannot use tractors and trolleys on highway…you are travelling on your tractors and trolleys from Amritsar to Delhi.. everyone knows about their rights but there are also constitutional duties.”
The case is set to be revisited next week for further proceedings, as the court continues to address the multifaceted issues surrounding the farmers’ protests and governmental responses.
