‘Talk to each other’: Supreme Court allows farmers protest to go on

The Supreme Court on Thursday allowed farmers amassed at Delhi’s borders to continue their protest against the three contentious laws that seek to open up trade in agriculture, emphasising that to protest against a law was a fundamental right.

A bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) SA Bobde shot down a plea by the Centre as well as some petitioners, refusing to restrain the farmers as long as the protests are non-violent and do not result in damage to the life and property of other citizens.

At the same time, the bench implored the farmers and the government to “talk to each other”, as it underscored that every protest must also pave way for a “meaningful discussion” between the two sides.

“We clarify that this Court will not interfere with the protest in question...We are of the view at this stage that the farmers’ protest should be allowed to continue without impediment and without any breach of peace either by the protesters or the police,” ordered the bench, which included justices AS Bopanna and V Ramasubramanian.

The order came after senior advocate Harish Salve argued on behalf of a Delhi resident that blockades by protesters have held the entire national capital hostage and violate other citizens’ fundamental right of movement.

Salve contended no right was absolute, and the right to protest cannot extend to deny others their right to move freely or the right to life, given the farmers have come in droves and increased the risk of infection by the coronavirus. He added that the prices of commodities had also gone up due to restrictions on the free movement of the goods vehicles.

“We are all Indians and we are familiar with their problems. We are also sympathetic to their cause. But you (farmers) need to alter your way of protest. And we can tell you that we will see to it that a discussion through an independent and impartial committee takes place. We will have experts from the field of agriculture in this committee,” the bench said.

But due to the absence of most of the farmers’ unions spearheading the protests, the bench could not proceed with the constitution of a committee of representatives of both sides to discuss and resolve the dispute.

Later on Thursday, Union agriculture minister Narendra Singh Tomar tried to dispel the protesting farmers’ misgivings in an impassioned letter to the them, reiterating his commitment to resolve issues and a written assurance on state-set minimum support prices. He said confusion had been created by some political forces to derail the reforms.

“I belong to a farmer’s family and since childhood, I have experienced the tough life of farmers. It is very satisfactory that after implementation of the law, MSP procurement has set a new record this time,” Tomar wrote.

The farmer unions said in a media briefing at the Singhu border protest site that they would consult senior lawyers on the Supreme Court proceedings before taking any decision on whether to “implead” as a party in the matter.

“All farmer unions had a meeting today and we have decided that we will consult four Supreme Court lawyers – Prashant Bhushan, Dushyant Dave, HS Phoolka and Colin Gonsalves – about the ongoing proceedings in the Supreme Court… We will neither comment on the matter nor announce any decision without consulting these lawyers,” the coordinator of Rashtriya Kisan Mahasangh, KV Biju said.

In the Supreme Court, attorney general Venugopal, appearing for the Centre, drew a parallel with a “war-like situation” while complaining that the protesters had blocked all major entry points to the Capital.

“They need to disband, go back to their villages and we can talk to their leaders. The damage done in last 22 days is enormous. Worst of it all, they are here, brushing shoulders despite the Covid situation. When they will go back to their villages, they will be spreading the infection in Punjab, Haryana, etc. They will be a danger to themselves and others too,” Venugopal told the bench.

In a bid to end what it called a “stalemate”, the bench observed: “A protest has to have a purpose. You cannot just sit on a protest and then do nothing. We understand it is a perfectly constitutional protest. It has a purpose; a goal but that goal cannot be achieved by simply sitting in protest. They have to talk to each other; doesn’t matter even if it fails. And we want to facilitate this.”

The court adjourned the hearing until after a fortnight to wait for the farmers’ unions to show up and present their views. It also sought comments of the other parties regarding the constitution of the committee while making it clear in its order that “the pendency of these matters will not prevent the parties from resolving the issue amicably”.

The proceedings witnessed a reluctance on the part of the government to promise suspension of the laws in view of the pendency of the matter before the SC. When asked by the court if the government is willing to assure that the operation and the executive actions under the new laws can be put on hold, both the attorney general and solicitor general refrained from offering such commitments.

“We cannot do so (suspend the laws). Also, if we do it, farmers will not come to talk,” said Venugopal. Solicitor general Tushar Mehta said “it will be tough” to give an assurance such as this.

The attorney general rued that the unions’ demand is to repeal the laws and they insist that they do not want to discuss them clause by clause. “They (unions) or the committee (to be set up by the court) should discuss the clauses so that we can identify what exactly is the problem. It cannot be like repeal all laws or nothing,” he said.

The bench responded that it was constrained to observe a day ago that the negotiations between the government and the farmers’ unions are bound to fail again in view of recent events.

When Venugopal said the issue was not being resolved because of the farmers’ “adamant stand”, the bench replied: “They will think you are adamant.”

The court also told Venugopal and Mehta that till the time this protest is constitutional and does not turn violent, the police should be equally bound not to use any violent means. “You (police) cannot initiate violence nor can you blockade the city,” it added.

Meanwhile, advocate AP Singh, representing a faction of the Bhartiya Kisan Union, (BKU-Bhanu), demanded that farmers should be allowed to enter Delhi and be allowed to protest at Ramlila Maidan.

But this plea was quickly shot down by the bench: “Who is here in the court or on the spot to guarantee there won’t be injury to anyone or destruction of properties if they are allowed? Is it not for the police to decide these issues based on relevant inputs as a law-and-order situation? Courts don’t have the wherewithal to control a mob that goes on a rampage. This is for the police to decide.”