On Monday, the Supreme Court of India declined to entertain a plea regarding the demand for a Minimum Support Price (MSP) for farmers, stating that the issue falls within the domain of policy decision-making, which is the government’s prerogative. The plea sought directions from the government to ensure a guaranteed MSP covering all agricultural produce, aiming to secure a fair income for farmers across the country. However, the court emphasized that such matters are to be addressed by the executive and legislative branches, underscoring the separation of powers in the governance structure.
New Delhi: On Monday, March 4, 2024, the Supreme Court declined to entertain a petition that called for the government’s attention towards the farmers’ demands for the establishment of a Minimum Support Price (MSP) law for their crops. The petition, brought forth by Agnostos Theos, the Managing Director of the Sikh Chamber of Commerce, aimed at urging both the Central and State Governments to address the concerns raised by the protesting farmers.
READ ALSO: Arvind Kejriwal Offers Virtual Cooperation for ED Summons; Probe Agency Reacts
Justice Surya Kant and Justice KV Viswanathan, who presided over the case, advised against filing petitions purely to gain media attention, especially those that are substantiated by news reports. They emphasized the complexity of the issue and suggested that petitions of this nature should be thoroughly researched before being presented.
The court permitted Theos the option to retract his plea, allowing him the freedom to seek legal remedies in accordance with the law. Among the demands listed in his petition were the call for dignified treatment of the farmers engaged in protests and authorization for their march, along with their vehicles, towards Delhi.
“Do not file such petitions for publicity only, based on newspaper reports. The High Court is also seized of it and has given directions. Be careful. We are not taking a stand qua anything. Do your own research also, these are complex issues,”
Justice Kant Stated.
The farmer unions initiated their march to Delhi on February 13, raising their plea for the enactment of an MSP guarantee law. The protestors, who have stationed themselves at the Punjab and Haryana borders, encountered significant opposition from the Haryana Police, leading to clashes that resulted in injuries and, in one case, the death of a young protestor.
Despite numerous discussions between farmer leaders and Union government ministers, no agreement has been reached. The Punjab and Haryana High Court has been actively involved in cases pertaining to the farmer protests since their onset. Challenges to the restrictions placed on the protestors, including border closures and internet suspensions, as well as calls for legal action against the alleged police brutality, have been brought before the court.
A recent Public Interest Litigation (PIL) also demanded a criminal investigation into the police’s actions and a judicial inquiry into the death of a 22-year-old farmer. In response, the High Court has scheduled a hearing for March 7, after issuing notices to the states of Punjab and Haryana to submit their responses on the matter, especially concerning internet suspension, guided by the Supreme Court’s judgment in Anuradha Bhasin vs. Union of India.
In the landmark judgment of Anuradha Bhasin vs. Union of India, delivered on January 10, 2020, the Supreme Court of India addressed the issue of internet shutdowns in the context of the abrogation of Article 370 in Jammu and Kashmir in August 2019. The petitioner, Anuradha Bhasin, the executive editor of the Kashmir Times, challenged the restrictions on Freedom of Press resulting from the indefinite shutdown of communication and internet services in the region.
READ ALSO: Delhi Court Takes a Stand Against Misuse of Rape Laws
The Supreme Court’s judgment laid down several important guidelines and observations:
- The Court held that any restriction on the internet, a tool used for expression and trade, must be reasonable and proportionate. The state must ensure that the imposed restrictions are the least intrusive means to achieve the desired objective.
- The Court emphasized that any restriction on fundamental rights must be temporary and not amount to a complete abrogation of the right. The state must regularly review the situation and lift restrictions as soon as the situation permits.
- The Supreme Court directed that all orders imposing restrictions under Section 144 of the CrPC (Criminal Procedure Code) or any other law must be made public. This is to enable affected persons to challenge the legality of such orders in court. The lack of publication was a major concern in the case at hand, as the orders restricting internet access in Jammu and Kashmir were not made publicly available.
- The judgment emphasized the need for a legal framework governing internet shutdowns. It stated that the Telecommunication Services (Public Emergency or Public Safety) Rules, 2017, must be followed, which require that any order to suspend internet services must specify the reasons for such suspension and must be subject to periodic review.
- While the Supreme Court stopped short of declaring the right to internet access as a fundamental right, it recognized the importance of the internet in exercising fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(a) and Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
- The Court acknowledged the vital role of Freedom of Press in a democracy and stated that it cannot be curtailed unless it is necessary to prevent incitement or a threat to national security.
