The Supreme Court on Thursday recognized farmers’ right to non-violent protests and proposed the idea of suspending controversial farm laws to allow negotiations with agitating farmers, which the Center objected saying that farmers would not show up to the protests. conversations The high court, which made it clear that the issue of farmers’ protest and the right to free movement of others would be dealt with with priority and not the enforcement of the laws at this time, also said it was considering establishing a “impartial and independent panel” system of agriculture experts and farmers’ unions to resolve the deadlock.
The high court said it was of the opinion that the farmers’ right to protest should not infringe on the fundamental rights of others to move freely and to obtain basic food and other supplies, as the right to protest cannot mean blocking the entire city. Both the Center and a farmers union told the high court, which said it was concerned about the way things are happening, that negotiations are not happening at this time. He also said that farmers cannot continue to protest without speaking to the government. You continue the protest. You have the right. But you also have a purpose and that purpose is only fulfilled if you talk, argue and come to a conclusion, said a bank headed by the Chief Justice, SA Bobde, but added that in a democracy, the police and authorities must have power. to prevent protesters from infringing on the rights of others.
The bank said it would pass an order on the constitution of a committee only after hearing from all parties, including protesting farmers’ unions, and that postponing the Center’s implementation of the new farm laws would allow negotiations with farmers. . However, Attorney General KK Venugopal opposed the suggestion, saying that if the implementation of the farm laws is postponed, farmers will not show up for negotiations.
The higher court said it was not asking the Center to suspend the agricultural laws, but only suggested that their implementation be suspended for the time being to allow farmers to speak to the government. We are concerned about the plight of farmers. We are also Indians, but we are concerned about the way things are happening, the bank, which also includes judges AS Bopanna and V Ramasubramanian, said adding that (the protesting farmers) are not a mafia.
The high court said it will issue orders to serve notices to protesting farmers’ unions and give them the freedom to approach the holiday bank during winter break. During the hearing conducted via videoconference, the court observed that it recognizes the farmers’ right to protest but this right must not violate the fundamental rights of others to move freely and to obtain basic food and other supplies.
Holding that in a democracy, the police and authorities must have the power to prevent protesters from infringing on the rights of others, the bank said: “Who will make sure that if farmers are allowed to enter the city in such high numbers? Will they not? resort to violence? “The court cannot guarantee this. The court does not have the means to prevent such violence. It has to be the police and other authorities who will protect the rights of others, the court said, adding that the right to protest cannot mean blocking the entire city. He said that even the police and authorities should not incite protesting farmers to engage in violence of any kind.
The court referred to the 1988 Boat Club protest by farmers in Delhi and said that farmers’ organizations had paralyzed the entire city. The high court told the Bharatiya Kisan Union (Bhanu) group, which was the only farmers’ organization represented in court today through lawyer AP Singh, that they cannot continue to protest without speaking to the government.
You cannot sit and protest for years and years and not talk to the government. We have already said that we recognize your right to protest but the protest must have a reason. You need to speak to the government, said the bank. During the hearing, the court said it would establish the committee that could include experts such as P Sainath and representatives of the government and farmers’ organizations to seek resolution of the stalemate on the statutes. “We recognize the right of farmers to protest, but it has to be non-violent,” he said.
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 are not going to decide today the validity of the law. The only thing we are going to decide is the issue of the protest and the right to move freely,” the bench clarified at the beginning of the hearing that is still going on.
You are hearing a handful of petitions seeking the eviction of farmers protesting on various roads along Delhi’s borders. The high court had indicated on Wednesday that it could form a committee with government representatives and farmers’ unions from across the country to resolve the impasse over farmers protesting on various roads near Delhi’s borders against the three new farm laws, saying that “can become a problem”. The high court had told the Center that their negotiations have apparently not worked out. ”Several requests have been filed in the high court asking for instructions from the authorities to immediately remove the farmers, saying the travelers face difficulties Due to road blocks and rallies can lead to an increase in the number of COVID-19
cases.
.
