Updated: December 17, 2020 5:14:44 pm
Women, including widows and family members of farmers believed to have committed suicide out of debt, attend a protest against agricultural laws on the Tikri border near Delhi. (Reuters)
Recognizing the right of farmers to non-violent protests, the Supreme Court on Thursday he suggested that the Center put implementation of the new agricultural laws on hold while the idea of forming an impartial and independent committee, which may include experts like P Sainath, is proposed to end the deadlock. The Center said farmers would not come forward for negotiations if implementation of farm laws were suspended.
Heading a bench of three judges who hear a series of petitions seeking the removal of farmers protesting on the borders of Delhi.Chief Justice of India SA Bobde said he would order the delivery of notices to protesting farmers’ unions and give them freedom to approach the holiday bank.
Watch video
“A protest is constitutional until it destroys property or endangers life. Center and farmers have to speak. We are thinking of an impartial and independent committee before which both parties can give their version of the facts, ”said the CJI.
The high court said the purpose of organizing a protest can be achieved if farmers and the government hold talks and “we want to facilitate that.” “We will not decide today the validity of the law. The only thing we will decide is the issue of the protest and the right to circulate freely ”, the bench clarified at the beginning of the hearing.
The petitioners argued that the protesters blocked roads and closed border points, which had a negative impact on vehicular traffic. This, they said, was causing difficulties for people, including Covid-19 patients, to access emergency medical services.
The bank, which also includes judges AS Bopanna and V Ramasubramanian, said that farmers cannot instigate violence and blockade a city like this. The court said it would ask the Center if the form of protest could be modified slightly so that it does not affect citizens’ right of movement.
“Farmers have the right to protest. We will not interfere with that, but the form of protest is something we will study. We will ask the Center what is the form of protest that is being carried out, to alter it slightly so that it does not affect the right of movement of citizens, “said the Supreme Court.
Appearing before the government, Attorney General KK Venugopal said: “None of them (farmers) wear a mask, they sit together in large numbers. Covid-19 is a concern, they will visit towns and spread it there. Farmers cannot violate the fundamental rights of others. “
“Blocking Delhi can make the city’s people go hungry. Your (farmers) purpose can be fulfilled by talking. Simply sitting in protest will not help, ”CJI said, adding that the court only wants to facilitate a dialogue between the government and farmers.
Appearing before the Punjab government, the main advocate and leader of Congress, P Chidambaram, said that farmers were not blocking the city’s borders and only wanted to come to the national capital to protest within the limits of the law.
To this, the CJI said that the court cannot predict which mafia may turn violent and that it was the job of the police. “We cannot endanger someone’s life or property,” the CJI said. “This is not a mob, it is a large group of farmers,” Chidambaram protested. To this, the CJI said: “We are not calling them a mob.”
The ongoing protests, now in their third week, have seen thousands of farmers, mainly from Punjab and Haryana, gather at the capital’s gate.
Farmers have expressed fear that these laws would pave the way for the dismantling of the minimum support price system, leaving them at the “mercy” of large corporations. The government has argued that the new laws would provide better opportunities for farmers.
On Wednesday, the farmers’ unions sent a written response to the government, rejecting its Dec. 9 proposal offering important concessions. An official from the Ministry of Agriculture confirmed to The Indian Express that the government received a written response from the farmers’ unions. However, he declined to answer questions about whether the government would send an invitation to speak with farmers.
© IE Online Media Services Pvt Ltd
.
