On Wednesday, the Supreme Court took a significant step in addressing the ongoing farmers’ protest at the Punjab-Haryana border by suggesting the formation of an independent committee to mediate between the aggrieved farmers and state governments.
This move aims to resolve the standoff that has disrupted transportation and affected local economies.
Case Insights:
The Court directed the governments of Punjab and Haryana to propose names for individuals who could serve on this neutral committee.
The Court instructed both states to maintain the status quo at the protest site to prevent escalating tensions at the Shambhu border until they reach a resolution.
The bench has also asked both states to present a plan for removing barricades that inconvenience the public.
Meanwhile, the Haryana government filed a petition challenging the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s directive to reopen the Shambhu border.
Authorities closed the border in February to prevent the movement of farmers protesting from Punjab to Haryana, with demands for statutory guarantees for Minimum Support Prices (MSP) for their crops.
During the proceedings, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing Haryana, highlighted concerns over the presence of modified tractors, described as ‘armoured tanks,’ stationed at the protest site.
He warned that allowing these vehicles to travel to Delhi could lead to law and order issues.
The Supreme Court bench, however, questioned why the border could not be reopened without allowing the movement of these vehicles, stressing the need for meaningful dialogue with the protesting farmers.
Justice Kant remarked on the apparent trust deficit between the government and the farmers, suggesting that the involvement of neutral mediators might help build confidence.
He emphasized the necessity for efforts to address local issues and improve communication between the parties involved.
The bench also expressed frustration over the prolonged blockade of the National Highway (NH) by the protesters, which has been in place for over a year.
While acknowledging that farmers commonly modify tractors in the region, the Court noted that the Solicitor General had likened these modifications to virtual war tanks.
‘Border Blockade Affecting Economic Health’
The Advocate General for Punjab, Gurminder Singh, argued that the blockade was adversely affecting Punjab’s economic health, echoing concerns about the border’s closure impacting trade and public movement.
The High Court’s prior order reflected this sentiment, criticizing the border’s closure for causing significant inconvenience to citizens traveling between Punjab, Haryana, Delhi, and Jammu & Kashmir.
The Supreme Court intervened in response to the High Court’s earlier ruling, which stressed the need to restore the highway to its original condition.
The Court had previously refrained from issuing orders due to the large number of protesters but noted that the numbers have now reduced to approximately 400-500.
The Court has also directed the Kisan Union to adhere to legal norms.
In addition to this matter, another Special Leave Petition filed by Haryana challenging a High Court directive for a judicial inquiry into the death of a protesting farmer, Shubhkaran Singh, remains pending before the Supreme Court.
Also Read: Delhi Court Summons YouTuber Dhruv Rathee Over Defamation Lawsuit
