How can stir continue if matter is sub judice: SC
NEW DELHI: Contemplating restrictions on the right to protest, the Supreme Court on Monday observed that “nobody takes responsibility” when damage to property and physical injuries take place during protests, as it referred to the incident in Uttar Pradesh’s Lakhimpur Kheri where violence claimed eight lives during a farmers’ protest a day ago.
A bench of justices AM Khanwilkar and CT Ravikumar wondered why farmers are protesting when the operation of the three contentious farm laws has already been suspended by the apex court this January, while calling it a “principal question” to be determined as to whether protests should be allowed when the issue is sub judice (under judicial consideration).
The Union government, through Attorney General KK Venugopal and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, asserted that parties should not be allowed to protest on the streets when a constitutional court is already examining the subject matter of agitation.
“When such incidents happen, nobody takes responsibility. Damage to properties, physical damages... deaths too. But nobody takes responsibility,” remarked the bench when Venugopal spoke out about the violence at Lakhimpur Kheri.
“Why should a person be allowed to protest by the executive after he has exercised his right of going to the court? This is the principal question before us... Once you have gone to the court against the action of the executive, how can that person ask for a permission to protest? Protest against whom? It is now only the court that can pass orders,” commented the bench.
“When you have already challenged the law, why should you be allowed to protest? You choose only one option. Either you appeal to Parliament or you come to the court. You cannot be doing everything... How can there be a protest when the matter is sub judice? We will decide this issue,” said the bench.
The top court was hearing a petition by farmers’ outfit Kisan Mahapanchayat, seeking permission to hold a peaceful satyagraha against the farm laws at the Capital’s designated protest site of Jantar Mantar when it questioned if there can be an “absolute right to protest”, especially when the party concerned has already moved court against the policy or legislation against which it seeks to hold demonstrations.
Meanwhile, another SC bench, comprising justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and MM Sundresh, issued notices to 43 leaders of farmers’ organisations which have been leading protests under the banner of the Samyukt Kisan Morcha (SKM) against the three farm laws passed by Parliament last year. These leaders include Rakesh Tikait of Bhartiya Kisan Union and Yogendra Yadav of Swaraj Abhiyan.
On a request made by the Haryana government through Mehta, the court sought replies from the farm leaders, who have been sought to be included as parties to a petition by Monicca Agarwaal, a single mother working in an information technology firm who said her travel from Noida to Delhi has become a nightmare due to these protests.
According to the application moved by the Haryana government, it is imperative to hear the farm leaders if issues arising out of the agitation on public roads causing inconvenience to others are to be resolved. This bench said that it would hear the case next on October 20 after farm leaders are served with notices.
Thousands of farmers are camping on the borders of Delhi, Haryana and Uttar Pradesh, and on highways along these states since November last year, protesting three controversial laws. Traffic at many points have been diverted, adding to commuting times, besides affecting commercial activities along these routes.
Meanwhile, Kisan Mahapanchayat assured the bench, headed by justice Khanwilkar, that is not a part of SKM and is not protesting in public spaces but wishes to carry out a peaceful protest at Jantar Mantar to raise several pertinent issues in farmers’ interest.
Former Supreme Court judge, Justice Madan B Lokur, said that the suggestion by the court that nobody should protest against the farm laws when the issue is pending consideration before it is ridden with dangers. “Supreme Court has no power to restrict Fundamental Rights - it has to protect them for the benefit of citizens. If peaceful protest is prohibited, there is a violation of the right to assemble peacefully without arms, which is a constitutional right guaranteed by Article 19(1)(b),” he said.