The Supreme Court on Monday raised the question as to whether those against the Centre’s farm laws can claim the right to protest after they have approached the courts challenging the laws (Kisan Mahapanchayat v. Union of India).
“We have to decide the legal question on when you have approached courts, then how can you protest on the same issue.”
It thus questioned whether the right to protest was an absolute right, reports Bar and Bench.
The Court was hearing a plea by farmers body Kisan Mahapanchayat seeking permission to stage a satyagraha at Delhi’s Jantar Mantar.
Appearing for the petitioner organisation, Advocate Ajay Chaudhary told the Court that his clients were neither a part of the protesters at the Delhi border, nor did they cause any permanent or temporary blockage of traffic.
In response, the Court said,
“Once the party approaches the court challenging the validity of the Act, after that what is the question of protests? Once you have come to court, you have exercised your option.”
After noting that a similar plea has been filed before the Rajasthan High Court, the Bench stated,
“We will transfer your plea in Rajasthan High Court to here and hear the case. Once you challenge the executive action, then matter is sub judice. Then how can you protest? Protest against whom?”
Attorney General KK Venugopal and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta concurred with the Court, saying that till the validity of the farm laws is decided, protests cannot continue.
The Court stated in its order,
“Since a plea is pending before the Rajasthan High Court, we direct the same plea to be transferred to this Court and hear this plea together with it. We direct the Registry to summon case details from the High Court and transfer the case so that both petitions can be heard on October 21.”
Farmers, particularly from Haryana, Punjab and Western Uttar Pradesh, have been protesting against the three farm laws, namely – Farmers’ Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) Act, 2020; Farmers’ (Empowerment and Protection) Agreement of Price Assurance Act and Farm Services Act, 2020; and the Essential Commodities (Amendment) Act, 2020 – demanding that they be rolled back.
The plea specifically stated that they would sit for satyagraha in limited numbers, in strict compliance with the COVID-19 protocol declared by the government.
The Court had earlier observed that since the farmers have challenged the laws, the protesting farmers should repose faith in the system and the courts instead of continuing with the protests.
“If you have faith in courts, pursue that for urgent hearing instead of protesting. You have strangulated the city and now you want to come inside the city and protest. This coaxing should stop. You have blocked highways and roads,” the Court had observed.
However, the petitioner maintained that it is not part of the protests blocking roads and highways. The Court had then asked the petitioner association file an affidavit to that effect.
