The Supreme Court on Thursday reiterated its objections about farmers blocking highways as part of their ongoing protests against the three contentious Farm laws.
A Bench headed by Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul said that redressal of grievances can be through judicial forums, agitation and parliamentary debates but not by way of blocking highways, reports Bar and Bench.
“How can highways be blocked perpetually? Where does it end,” the Court demanded.
The Court also said that it had laid down the law in this regard and it was the duty of the executive to implement it.
“If we pass any directions, then you will say we trespassed into executive domain. How to implement the law is your business. The Court has no means to implement it,” the Bench said.
The Court was hearing a plea by a resident of NOIDA in Uttar Pradesh (UP) seeking relief against road blockade by protesting farmers.
The petitioner, Monicca Agarwal contended despite various directions passed by the top court to keep public roads clear, they have not been followed. The plea added that the petitioner being a single mother with medical issues, it has become a nightmare for her to travel from Noida to Delhi.
The UP government had, in its response, informed the Court that it is in the process of requesting farmers to clear the area for smoother traffic.
At the hearing on Thursday, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said that a high level committee was formed where the farmers were invited to participate but they refused to join.
He also said that certain farmers representatives have to be joined as parties to the instant case so that they are informed about the government plans.
The Court, however, said that the Centre will have to implead them as parties since petitioner might not be aware of who the leaders representing the farmers are.
“Mr. Mehta, you have to move application for impleadment. How will the petitioner know who the leaders are. You move an application saying what you have done and how impleadment of some parties will help in resolution of dispute,” the Court said.
The Court then proceeded to list the case for further consideration on Monday, September 4.
