The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to examine the issue whether right to protest is an absolute right, in a plea filed by Kisan Mahapanchayat, seeking space for protesters at Jantar Mantar and listed the matter to be heard on October 21.

A bench led by Justice A.M. Khanwilkar and Justice C.T. Ravikumar sought the Attorney General’s assistance. AG K.K. Venugopal submitted that the petitioners have challenged the validity of the Act before the High Court. 

The bench said, “Once a party approaches the court challenging the validity of an Act, where is the question of holding protest?”

To which, the Attorney General replied, “Your Lordship is right. You can’t arrive at two houses at the same time. He has chosen his forum.”

The AG also expressed disappointment at Sunday’s Lakhimpur Kheri incident before the Supreme Court. “Such unfortunate incidents should not happen. The protests must stop” said the AG. The Supreme Court opined, “When such incidents happen, no one takes responsibility.”

The Supreme Court on Friday had asked Kisan Mahapanchayat, a body of farmers and agriculturists, to file an affidavit, stating that they are not part of the group protesting on borders that have blocked the highways.

Following which, the Supreme Court was today informed by Advocate Ajay Choudhary, Counsel for Kisan Mahapanchayat, that they have filed an affidavit stating that they are not involved in any blockage on any route. “We have served copies to the AG,” he said. 

On October 1, the Division Bench of Justice A.M. Khanvilkar and Justice C.T. Ravikumar had passed the order on a plea, seeking directions to the authorities to stage a peaceful and non-violent Satyagraha at Jantar Mantar, New Delhi. 

The petition further prayed to provide space to at least 200 farmers/protestors of the Mahapanchayat at Jantar Mantar for organising Satyagraha and direction to the Respondents not to stop the agitators from proceeding towards Jantar Mantar to carry out the indefinite Satyagraha.

The petition is filed by ‘Kisan Mahapanchayat’, a body of farmers and agriculturists through Advocate Ajay Choudhary.

According to the petition, the action of the Respondents in detaining the petitioners or ‘Satyagrahis’ for the whole day when they are protesting peacefully and in orderly fashion as per Covid Norms proceeding for the designated place to hold Satyagrah as per the Standing Order of Delhi Police, is violative of Articles 14, 19 & 21 of the Constitution of India.

The action of the Respondents is also discriminatory and arbitrary as permission to protest has been granted to another farmer body while denying the petitioner to organise a staggered Satyagrah, which is the most non–violent, peaceful and truthful form of protest perfected and practised by Father of the Nation Mahatma Gandhi, alleged the petition.

Also Read: Supreme Court refuses to scale down Supertech towers’ demolition order

It said that on March 18, 2021, the petitioner made a representation to the Prime Minister Narendra Modi, reflecting about the issues about the agriculturalists and their hardships in case of corporatization of the agricultural farms. Later on April 9, 2021, the petitioner made a request to the Commissioner of Police, Delhi, seeking permission for holding a protest at Jantar Mantar on grievances that the farmers have regarding the agricultural laws enacted by the Union Parliament. On April 8, 2021 after meeting the ACP Dinesh Kumar, the undertaking in the prescribed format was submitted. However, the request of the Petitioner was rejected on 09.04.2021. 

The petition further stated that on April 11, 2021, the petitioner again submitted the request through mail as well as in person. However, the Delhi Disaster Management Authority, Delhi Government issued notification under the Disaster Management Act, 2005, imposing restrictions on public movement, owing to which the applications remained suspended till May, 2021. 

Due to the prevailing conditions in the country and some of core members also being afflicted with the CoronaVirus, the petitioner stalled their program of organizing Satyagrah for the time being till the situation improves. Later on 12.06.2021 the Petitioner again applied for permissions with requisite undertakings for Satyagrah at designated place of Jantar Mantar as the covid pandemic situation improved and the Central as well as the State Governments relaxed the norms about people gathering and congregations.

Also Read: Delhi High Court adjourns Swami Narayan Mandir plea on FCRA annual return filing for 2019-20

It was specifically stated that they would sit for Satyagrah in limited numbers in strict compliance of Protocol declared by the Government. The Petitioner was given an audience to present their request in person on June 28, in which the petitioner explained their plan of peaceful a Satyagrah. However, their request was again rejected on June 30, assigning the flimsy excuse of Covid Pandemic, while the restrictions have been lifted on all activities subject to following Covid Norms.

On June 30, the Deputy Commissioner of Police, New Delhi District, rejected the request of holding an indefinite Satyagraha at Jantar Mantar on the premise of guidelines issued by the Delhi Disaster Management Authority dated June 26, prohibiting activities including political gathering up to July 5.

On July 2, the DDMA eased the restrictions further and limited public gatherings were allowed. The petitioner informed in advance to Delhi Police about their program of holding the Satyagrah at Jantar Mantar, in which limited persons would participate in full compliance of the Covid Protocols from 05.07.2021 . On this the petitioner was apprised that they would not be able to give any written permission, however, there would also not be any restrictions in holding of Satyagrah protest by the farmers. It was also mentioned that the number of Satyagrahis be limited to a maximum of 15 persons in a day and to be held in the time period of 10.00 AM to 4.00 PM. 

It is mentioned in the Petition that pursuant to such understanding the members of the Petitioner farmers union started their journey from Jaipur, Rajasthan and reached Delhi on 04.07.2021. However, the Petitioner was informed through a Whatsapp Message on behalf of Delhi Police at 4.52 PM that their request had been rejected . However , as planned and duly informed to the Delhi Police about their program of Satyagrah, the Petitioner members 15 in number sat on Satyagrah from 12 Noon to 5 PM on 05.07.2021 and also submitted a representation to the Prime Minister’s Office. However , on 06.07.2021 when the petitioner’s Satyagrahi farmers were going to Jantar Mantar , they were stopped at Patel Chowk Metro Station and taken to Parliament Street Police Station, where they were detained up to 7 PM. 

Also Read: Chakma refugees: Gauhati HC directs Arunachal Pradesh govt to submit compliance report if food grains given to them

The Petitioner again requested the Respondents 13.07.2021 to permit them to organize a peaceful Satyagrah to raise their grievance against the Government and demand rectification of their grievances. The requests of the Petitioner were denied on the one hand but were allowed to another farmer’s body Samyukt Kisan Morcha to organize staggered protest to the strength of 200 farmers on 21.07.2021, which smacks arbitrariness and discrimination by the Respondent Authorities, the Petition alleged.

“The Right of citizens to protest and gather peacefully without arms is a fundamental aspect of India’s democracy . While it is also the obligation of the government to protect civilians from violent protests, certain essential principles need to be kept in mind. The Right to protest is one of the core principles on which democracy survives and thrives,” the Petition reads.

The farmers are protesting against the passage of three laws — The Farmers Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) Act, 2020, The Essential Commodities (Amendment) Act, 2020 and Farmers (Empowerment and Protection) Agreement on Price Assurance and Farm Services Act, 2020.

By Shaheen Parween

On January 12, the Supreme Court passed an order staying the implementation of the three contentious farm laws until further orders. The bench of Chief Justice SA Bobde and Justices AS Bopanna and V Ramasubramanian also appointed a four-member committee to listen to the grievances of the farmers related to the laws they are objecting to and also get the views of the government and submit its report in two months.

The committee initially comprised Bhupinder Singh Mann, national president, Bharatiya Kisan Union and All India Kisan Coordination Committee; Dr Parmod Kumar Joshi, agricultural economist and director for South Asia, International Food Policy Research Institute; Ashok Gulati, agricultural economist and former chairman of the Commission for Agricultural Costs and Prices; and Anil Ghanwat, president, Shetkari Sanghatana. Later, Mann recused himself from the committee, declaring his full support for the farmers.

The order has, however, not been perceived well by a few farmers’ organisations. A press release issued by the CPI(M) Central Committee office termed the apex court’s ruling “an ill-conceived order”. It has further been said that none of the petitioners had asked for the committee. Moreover, the farmers’ representatives, during their talks with the government, had already rejected the offer of a committee. It has further been alleged that “the Court has appointed four persons to the committee who are all known for their support to the three farm laws.”

These views have led to a complex situation. While the top court has asked representatives of all the farmers’ bodies whether they are holding a protest or not and whether they support or oppose the laws to participate in the deliberations of the committee and put forth their views, the farmers’ bodies have stayed firm on their non-involvement in the Court’s affairs.

The three contentious, new farm laws that were before the bench were the Farmers’ Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) Act, 2020; the Essential Commodities (Amendment) Act, 2020; and the Farmers (Empowerment and Protection) Agreement on Price Assurance and Farm Services Act, 2020.

Some petitions have challenged the constitutional validity of the farm laws. These include a petition challenging the validity of the Constitution (Third Amendment) Act, 1954, by which Entry 33 was substituted in List III (Concurrent List) in the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution, enabling the centre to also legislate on a subject which was otherwise part of the State List. Another set of petitions supports the farm laws and says they are constitutionally valid and also beneficial to the farmers.

The third category of petitions isn’t about the farm laws, but about the civic problems arising out of the farmers’ protest. Some citizens from Delhi-NCR have placed this petition, saying that the manner in which the protest is being carried on is seriously inhibiting the supply of essential goods to the city because of restrictions on the free movement of goods’ vehicles. According to the petitioners, this will result in a sharp increase in the prices of goods which would be difficult for people to bear in these pandemic-struck times.

The petitions supporting the laws say that no fundamental right is absolute and it would be necessary for the Court to determine the contours of the right of free speech and expression involved in the farmers’ protest and the extent to which this right can be exercised consistently with the rights of other citizens.

The bench, however, in its earlier hearing had clarified that it will not interfere with the protest of the farmers, because the right to protest is part of the fundamental rights. The bench observed that there can certainly be no impediment in the exercise of such rights as long as it is non-violent and does not result in damage to the lives and properties of other citizens and is in accordance with the law.

The Court, while passing the order, observed that though several rounds of negotiations had taken place between the Government of India and the farmers’ bodies, no solution seemed to be in sight. Further, the situation on the ground is that senior citizens, women and children are at the protest site, exposing themselves to serious health hazards posed by the intense cold and the Covid-19 virus. There have been a few deaths, not through violence, but either out of illness or by way of suicide.

The bench also lauded the farmers for the peaceful agitation. But it was pointed out during the hearing that a few persons who are not farmers have also joined. There was apprehension that these outside elements might want to foment trouble.

The bench observed: “While we may not stifle a peaceful protest, we think that this extraordinary order of stay of implementation of the farm laws will be perceived as an achievement of the purpose of such protest at least for the present and will encourage the farmers’ bodies to convince their members to get back to their livelihood, both in order to protect their own lives and health and in order to protect the lives and properties of others.”

While passing an order for constitution of the committee, the bench said: “The constitution of a committee of experts in the field of agriculture to negotiate between the farmers’ bodies and the government of India may create a congenial atmosphere and improve the trust and confidence of the farmers. We are also of the view that a stay of implementation of all the three farm laws for the present may assuage the hurt feelings of the farmers and encourage them to come to the negotiating table with confidence and good faith.”

Attorney General KK Venugopal submitted before the bench that there were reports that the farmers’ bodies may take out a tractor rally on January 26, disrupting the Republic Day Parade and celebrations. However, this was stoutly denied by Senior Advocate Dushyant Dave, appearing for a few of the farmers’ bodies. Dave said that this was not possible, because at least one member of the family of each of the farmers from Punjab is in the army and that they would not disrupt the Republic Day celebrations. 

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta had filed an application seeking an order of injunction restraining anyone from conducting any protest march either in the form of tractor/trolley/vehicle march or any other mode in the national capital on Republic Day. The bench issued notice on the said application.

Insofar as the apprehension regarding Minimum Support Price being done away with is concerned, Mehta confirmed that there are inherent safeguards in-built in the farm laws for the protection of the land of the farmers and that it will be ensured that no farmer will lose his land.

The bench also reaffirmed that the Minimum Support Price System in existence before the enactment of the farm laws shall be maintained until further orders. In addition, the farmers’ land holdings shall be protected, i.e., no farmer shall be dispossessed or deprived of his title as a result of any action taken under the farm laws.

Former Supreme Court judge Justice Markandey Katju, in a letter addressed to Prime Minister Narendra Modi, urged the government to repeal the farm laws by an ordinance and appoint a high-powered farmers’ commission comprising representatives of leading farmers’ organisations, government representatives and agricultural experts. The committee should consider all aspects of the problems of farmers, the principal one being that they are not getting adequate remuneration for their produce, because of which three to four lakh farmers have already committed suicide.

Justice Katju also expressed apprehensions that if violence in Delhi ensues, soon thereafter there will be large scale turmoil in Punjab, Haryana, Uttarakhand, western UP, and this will then spread and escalate in other Indian states too.

The Farmers Producer Companies (FPCs), on the other hand, are fearing a setback in their business since after the stay order of the Court , the FPCs, who had started business outside Agricultural Produce Market Committees (APMCs), will now have to pay cess or seek permission to carry out their business.

The developments so far

• Eight rounds of talks between government and farmers end in deadlock.
• Government says it is ready for amendments, but farmers steady on repeal of all the three farm laws.
• Farmers refuse to believe government assurance that MSP and APMCs would stay.
• Government refuses to repeal laws.
• Supreme Court says farmers’ protest not illegal and the Court does not want to interfere in the process as long as it is peaceful.
• The apex court stays the implementation of three new farm laws.
• The Court forms a four-member committee, comprising agriculture experts, to talk to farmers and the government.
• Farmers refuse to negotiate with the committee as requested by the Court
• CPI(M) Central Committee office calls the apex court’s ruling “an ill-conceived order”.
• Bhupinder Singh Mann recuses from the four-member committee; says he is supportive of the farmers.
• Complaints arise about “outsiders” adding fuel to farmers’ ire; fear of disturbances.
• Proposed Republic Day tractor rally opposed by government counsel.
• Justice (retd) Markandey Katju writes to prime minister, says that agitation may spread across nation; asks for repeal of the laws via ordinance.
• Farmers burn copies of the contentious laws during Lohri.
• The ninth round of talks between the government and farmers unsuccessful.

Read Also: Delhi HC refers petition against 2018 amendment of Prevention of Corruption Act to bench seized of the matter