The Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case Uday Pratap Singh v. U0l and Ors observed in the ongoing protest by farmers who are statedly marching towards Delhi in demand of a law guaranteeing MSP. The court called for an amicable settlement between the parties.
The Division bench comprising of Acting Chief Justice GS Sandhawalia and Justice Lapita Banerji in the case observed and has asked the State governments to determine protest sites until then. Notices have been issued to Centre and governments of Punjab, Haryana and Delhi.
In the present case, the bench was hearing the two PILs in relation to the protest.
The First PIL filed stated states that the Haryana government’s decision to seal its borders in order to prevent the agitators from entering the State and moving to Delhi whereas the second PIL is against protestors, wherein it is stated that they have unauthorisedly blocked state and national highways.
The court in the case observed and has stated that the protestors being citizens of India, have a right to move around freely in the country.
The court stated that the same breath it added that State government also has the duty to protect its citizens and ensure that no inconvenience is caused to them.
The court observed that there has to be balance in fundamental right to speech and expression, none of the rights are in isolation and the cautionary should be kept in mind and issue should be resolved amicably…All parties in the present dispute should make efforts to sit down and solve the problem and area should be identified by states to protest.
The counsel appearing for the Central Government assured the court that the Union government is open to negotiations so far as MSP is concerned.
Therefore, the court granted the State to file the status report.
The First Public Interest Litigation, PIL is filed by Uday Pratap Singh, a Chandigarh based lawyer wherein it challenged the ‘obstructive actions’ of the Central and State governments, which includes the sealing of border between Haryana and Punjab and suspension of mobile internet services and bulk SMS in several districts of Haryana.
It has also been submitted by Singh before the court that the fundamental rights allows exercise of liberty without censorship. But government has stopped the farmers…As per in the case Mazdoor Kisan Sanghthan v. UoI, Article 19(1)(a) and (1)(b) confer rights to assemble peacefully. Legitimate dissent is distinguishing feature of democracy.
On the other hand, the second Public Interest Litigation, PIL is filed by Arvind Seth, also a lawyer by profession, wherein seeking directions to States, Union to ensure that all the National and State Highways and railway tracks falling in the State of Punjab and Haryana are not blocked by the farmer’s protest and immediate action be taken against the said agitators, as per the provisions of National Highway Act, 1956.
It has been argued by Seth before the court that thousands of vehicles are moving towards Delhi…nobody should be allowed to block the national highways. Thus, the Public inconvenience cannot be allowed and the people going to the hospitals are suffering…There are specified places by govt where people can protest, but they cannot put public in inconvenience by moving anywhere to protest.