The Supreme Court today adjourned the hearing of Haryana’s plea against Punjab and Haryana High Court’s direction to unblock the Shambhu Border giving time to Haryana and Punjab to suggest the names of neutral persons who can be included in a committee to negotiate with the protesting farmers.
The bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice R Mahadevan stressed on the need to inspire confidence in the farmers and called upon the states of Haryana and Punjab to suggest names of neutral personalities who could constitute the committee for resolution of farmers’ grievances.
Justice Kant remarked that they want a very smooth beginning in terms of dialogue, and requested states to suggest names of very seasoned practical personalities in the country who have experience to their credit and who know the in and out of the problem, who is also a neutral personality. He added that such members will inspire more confidence in the farmers.
This matter was re-listed on August 12, on an assurance by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and Punjab Advocate General Gurminder Singh that the exercise of suggesting common names for the committee would be undertaken. Meanwhile, the court directed that the interim arrangement, status quo of the Shambhu border blockade shall continue.
The hearing started with SG Mehta informing the court that in terms of its last order, steps were being taken to suggest names for the constitution of a committee. Following, a prayer was made by the Punjab AG that some relief may be given to vehicles permitted under the Motor Vehicles Act.
However, the same was objected to by SG Mehta, saying that Punjab cannot make such a proposal on behalf of the farmers. While trying to impress upon the parties that the issue should be resolved amicably, Justice Kant suggested to the AG that nobody should precipitate the situation. He added that they do not need to hurt their sentiments, but as a state try to persuade farmers that as far as the tractors are concerned, machines are concerned, other agricultural equipments are concerned, let those be taken to a place where they are required.
The judge further added that in a democratic setup, they have a right to voice their grievances, and those grievances can be at that place also, if they want to make a representation, Punjab will not object to that.
Responding, the SG averred that Punjab cannot plead on behalf of farmers that the vehicles be allowed. He added that farmers can say, but farmers are not appearing before High Court also they did not, despite issuance of notice.
Following, respondent-Uday Pratap Singh, who was the petitioner before the High Court added that the border needs to be opened, at least for access to emergent services across the states.
Justice Kant verbally remarked that an ambulance carrying patients or a car carrying senior citizens cannot be prevented. The bench also suggested that in such emergent cases, the police personnel deployed on both sides, Haryana and Punjab can coordinate amongst themselves so that the vehicles are allowed to pass.
Later, as the counsels expressed that by the next date, they would come up with common names for the committee, the matter was adjourned.