Manas Dasgupta
NEW DELHI, Dec 17: With the 22-day old farmers’ agitation still see no prospect of an early solution, the Supreme Court on Thursday suggested the central government to put the implementation of the three contentious farm laws on hold till an impartial committee to be constituted by it gave its decision.
The centre, however, was non-committal on holding back the implementation of the farm laws stating in such a situation the agitators would not come forward for talks for ending the deadlock. The centre was also insistent that the farmers must be asked to end the protest and lift the blockade of Delhi immediately.
The centre’s stand on the issue was made clear by the attorney general K K Venugopal after the apex court acknowledging the farmers’ right to protest so long the agitation remained peaceful and did not threaten life and property of the people. But Venugopal strongly objected to the farmers’ conduct. He said the farmers could not be allowed to corner the government into a ‘yes or no’ to their demand to repeal the laws. The government was ready for a clause by clause discussion on the laws.
To the centre’s stand that the farmers’ agitation was chocking the entry points to Delhi resulting in difficulties for the people and forcing rise of prices of essential commodities, the advocate for the Delhi government objected who pointed out that Delhi had got 121 entry points and closure of a few due to the sit-in protest by the farmers could not put the life of the people in jeopardy.
The advocate for Punjab and senior Congress leader P Chidambaram also disagreed that the farmers could be blamed for creating the blockade on the borders of Delhi. He pointed out that the farmers wanted to march into Delhi to protest before the central government but the Delhi police prevented them from entering the city forcing them to squat at the place where they were stopped by the police.
To this, however, the apex court said law and order was police subject and it was for the police to decide whether such a large crowd could be allowed to enter inside the city risking violence and damages to property and the court should not interfere in it.
Outside the court, the Delhi chief minister Arvind Kejriwal registering a strong protest against the three farm laws tore copies of the acts inside the state Assembly during its one-day session on Thursday and said the laws were not meant for farmers but have been made to ensure election funding for the ruling BJP. The Delhi Assembly also passed a resolution tabled by revenue minister Kailash Gahlot demanding that the Central government should repeal the laws immediately.
In the apex court, chief justice of India S A Bobde heading a three-judge bench suggested that the Centre put on hold the implementation of the new acts and advised the farmers’ unions to agree to hold talks with the government since no purpose could be served if they continued to merely sit in protest without engaging in talks.
To the centre’s stand that the farmers would not come forward for talks if the acts were put on hold, the court said it would order for serving notices to the protesting unions and give them liberty to approach the vacation bench, since the court would be going for vacation from Saturday to reopen only on January 4.
Heading a three-judge bench hearing a clutch of petitions seeking removal of the farmers from the borders of Delhi, Bobde said farmers have constitutional right to continue with their “absolutely perfect” protest as long as their dissent against the three controversial agricultural laws did not slip into violence.
“We recognise the right to protest. There is no question of curtailing it. But it should not damage anybody’s lives”, Bobde observed.
The court, however, said the purpose of the protesting farmers would not be served if they continued to sit without engaging in talks.
“Yes, there is a protest that is going on… Yes, the protest is constitutional as long as it does not damage property and lives. It is an absolutely perfect protest. But their purpose cannot be realised if they continue to sit without talking,” the CJI observed.
The court reiterated its suggestion of forming an “impartial and independent committee” of experts in agriculture to hear both farmers and the Union government on the laws.
“If their [farmers] protest has a purpose other than just to sit in protest, we are thinking of an independent committee before whom both sides can state their case while the protest goes on… The committee can give its opinion after hearing them. We expect parties [farmers and government] to follow the committee’s opinion. Meanwhile, the protest will continue without causing violence or damage on both sides,” The CJI suggested.
“A protest is constitutional till it does not destroy property or endanger life. Centre and farmers have to talk. We are thinking of an impartial and independent committee before whom both parties can give its side of story,” the CJI said.
The top court said the purpose of staging a protest can be achieved if the farmers and the government hold talks and “we wish to facilitate that”. “We will not decide the validity of law today. The only thing which we will decide is the issue of protest and the right to move freely,” the bench made clear at the outset of the hearing.
The court cautioned the government against trying to “instigate” violence. The CJI stressed that as fellow Indians, the judges too understood the farmers’ problems.
But when the court asked Venugopal whether the government could give an assurance to keep the implementation of the farm laws in abeyance in order to facilitate talks, the top law officer was non-committal. Instead, he said the “blockade will have to go”.
“Discussions can be held with their leaders. The protesters are standing there cheek by jowl. Pandemic is spreading. When they go back to their villages, they will spread the disease like wildfire,” he submitted.
“You [government] have not obviously been successful with them so far… That maybe because they were adamant or you were…” Bobde responded.
The bench also comprising Justices A S Bopanna and V Ramasubramanian said farmers cannot instigate violence and block a city like this. The court said it would ask the Centre if the manner of protest could be slightly altered so that it doesn’t affect the citizens’ right of movement.
“Farmers have right to protest. We won’t interfere with it but the manner of protest is something we will look into. We will ask Centre what is the manner of protest going on, to slightly alter it so that it doesn’t affect the citizens’ right of movement,” the bench said.
Venugopal, however, insisting on court order to lift the blockade said, “None of them (farmers) wear a face mask, they sit together in large numbers. Covid-19 is a concern, they will visit villages and spread it there. Farmers cannot violate the fundamental rights of others.”
The nearly hour-long virtual court hearing ended on an inconclusive note when the court found that many of the protesting farmer bodies were not present. The Bench asked the Centre to serve them notice.
As the farmers continued to sit in at different entry points to Delhi braving the north Indian cold, another farmer from Punjab was found dead near the Tikri border near Delhi on Thursday morning. Media reports quoting Delhi police said a least 20 farmers, many of them are from Punjab, have so far died either of natural causes or in road accidents since the beginning of the agitation on November 26. Farmer organisations at Singhu and Tikri said they were now preparing list of these persons who died during the agitation to help their families.
Meanwhile, the National Coordinator of Rashtriya Kisan Mahasangh K V Biju has said the farm unions would consult with senior Supreme Court lawyers before taking a decision over the case in the apex court. The Supreme Court is currently hearing a clutch of petitions seeking removal of agitating farmers from the borders of Delhi, citing it is causing trouble to the citizens.
“We’ll consult with four senior SC lawyers – Prashant Bhushan, Dushyant Dave, HS Phoolka and Colin Gonsalves,” Biju said.