The Supreme Court Today (Dec 2) asked Punjab farmer leader Jagjit Singh Dallewal, who is on a fast-unto-death at the Khanauri border point to press for the acceptance of farmers’ demands, to persuade the protesting farmers not to obstruct highways and cause inconvenience to people. A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan disposed of a habeas corpus petition filed on behalf of Dallewal, who was removed from the Khanauri protest site on the Punjab-Haryana border on November 26.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court, on Monday, addressed the ongoing protest by Punjab farmer leader Jagjit Singh Dallewal, who is on a fast-unto-death at the Khanauri border point, advocating for farmers’ demands.
The court urged Dallewal to counsel the protesting farmers to refrain from blocking highways and causing inconvenience to the public.
Court’s Observations on the Matter
A bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan dismissed a habeas corpus petition filed on behalf of Dallewal. The petition was submitted after Dallewal was removed from the protest site at the Punjab-Haryana border on November 26.
“We have seen that he has been released and he even persuaded a fellow protestor to end his fast-unto-death protest on Saturday,”
-the bench stated.
They further noted that the farmers’ grievances are under consideration in a separate pending case.
Highlighting the importance of peaceful demonstrations, the court remarked,
“In a democratic setup, you can engage in peaceful protests but do not cause inconvenience to people. You all know that the Khanauri border is a lifeline for Punjab. We are not commenting on whether the protest is right or wrong.”
This statement was directed towards advocate Guninder Kaur Gill, representing Dallewal.
Justice Surya Kant emphasized that Dallewal should encourage the protesters to abide by the law while ensuring their demonstrations are peaceful and do not disrupt public life.
“You can persuade the protestors to organise peaceful protests under the law and without causing any inconvenience to people,”
-Justice Kant remarked.
Background of Dallewal’s Protest
The bench clarified that it would not entertain Dallewal’s petition at this stage but left the option open for him to approach the court later. Hours before initiating his fast-unto-death protest on November 26, Dallewal was reportedly removed from the Khanauri border and taken to a hospital in Ludhiana.
After being discharged on Friday evening, he rejoined the protest at Khanauri.
On November 29, a plea was submitted to the Supreme Court, challenging his alleged illegal detention by Punjab Police.
The following day, Dallewal resumed his fast-unto-death to push for the fulfillment of the farmers’ demands.
Farmers’ Ongoing Agitation
Farmers have been staging demonstrations at the Shambhu and Khanauri border points between Punjab and Haryana since February 13. Their protest intensified after security forces halted their march to Delhi.
The farmers claim that the central government has been indifferent to their demands, stating that no discussions have been held with them since February 18.
Their primary demands include:
- A legal guarantee for Minimum Support Price (MSP).
- Implementation of the Swaminathan Commission’s recommendations.
- Pension schemes for farmers and agricultural laborers.
- A waiver of farm debts.
- Restoration of the Land Acquisition Act, 2013.
- Compensation for the families of farmers who lost their lives during the previous agitation in 2020-21.
Protesters have voiced strong concerns over the government’s perceived inaction.
They argue that the lack of dialogue has exacerbated their frustration, forcing them to take more drastic measures like the fast-unto-death.
Supreme Court’s Approach
The Supreme Court’s intervention underscores the balance between the right to protest and the necessity to avoid public inconvenience.
While acknowledging the farmers’ rights in a democracy, the court advised caution and lawful conduct.
“At this stage, we are not entertaining the petition but he can approach later,” the bench reiterated.
This development has added a legal dimension to the ongoing farmers’ protest, emphasizing the need for resolution through dialogue and adherence to legal protocols.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s statements reflect the importance of peaceful protests while ensuring public convenience.
As the farmers’ agitation continues, it remains to be seen whether the dialogue between stakeholders will lead to a resolution of their demands.
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Farmers Protest
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
