The Supreme Court on Monday said that it was extremely disappointed with the way negotiations between the government and the farmers have progressed and said it would pass an order on the matter on Tuesday.
During the hearing, Attorney General K.K. Venugopal said that farmers’ organisation has rejected various offer. “We are extremely disappointed at the way the government is handling the issue. Last four times, you are saying negotiations. What negotiations you are talking about?” CJI asked the Centre.
The CJI said: “It will not help the government saying other government has started it. What negotiations you are talking about; we are not on the merits of the law. We are not on repeal. This is a very delicate situation. Our intention is to see whether a negotiated solution is possible. No response from Centre as to whether Centre was willing to put the law on hold. Reiterates need for a committee. We don’t see why there is an insistence on implementation of the law,” the CJI told Venugopal.
Advocate A.P. Singh appeared for BKU Bhanu and said: “We want negotiations. We have full faith.”
The CJI said whether “you have faith is us or not have faith, we are the Supreme Court of India. We have to take decision.”
The CJI observed that “we understand from the newspapers that talks are breaking down because government is insisting on discussing point by point and farmers want repeal. We can stay the laws till the committee gives its report.”
“We don’t want any criticism that court is stifling protest. You carry on protest if you want to. We want to ask after the laws are stayed you will move the site of the protest till the committee gives its report. We will tell you frankly the way everyone is beating drums, we have apprehension that there will be some incident intended or unintended that will break the peace,” the CJI added.
The CJI said: “We want to make this very clear—each one of us will be responsible if something goes wrong. If farmers are protesting against the laws, let farmers point out to the committee what’s wrong with the law.”
“We don’t want anyone’s injuries or anybody’s blood on our hands. Who will take the responsibility for any violence?” the CJI asked.
Senior advocate Harish Salve appeared for petition and said there should be some guarantee that people will go before the committee.
The CJI said people will be before the committee. That’s the point. Not everything can be done with a single order. The responsibility is heavy on everyone that there is no bloodshed at the spot. That can be sparked off by a stray incident.
The court will not pass any order against any citizen or group of citizens saying they cannot protest. “We can say you cannot protest at this spot,” CJI added.
The AG said alternatively, Lordships can pick up the sections that are problematic. The court should record statement of Dave that no tractors will come into Delhi.
Senior advocate Dushyant Dave appearing for the farmers’ organisation said that they respect the Republic Day as much as anyone else. Every family from Punjab has sent a son to the armed forces. They will not disrupt the Republic Day.
“Your Lordships asked why protest there. We have been asking for three months to be allowed to go to Ramlila maidan. The government is not allowing us to go there.”
“We have no intention of violence. We want to impress on the government how anguished we are,” Dave added.
Senior Advocate P.S. Narasimha appears for Indian Kisan Union said a large number of organisations believe that this law is beneficial for them. “Before any interim order is granted, we need to be heard.”
The CJI said “Even if your argument is valid it does not help the solution to the problem.”
Harish Salve said that the court should have assurance that in the next meeting, the people will not turn back their chair and say repeal or else.
The CJI said “Your argument is bona fide but some arguments should not be made at this stage. We will stay implementation of law. We want to make it clear we are not stifling protest. You can carry on the protest, but question is whether protest should be held at the same site.”
The Supreme Court was hearing a batch of petitions seeking removal of protesting farmers from the Delhi borders. The court also heard another set of petitions challenging the three farm laws.
