4 March 2024 8:54 AM GMT
The Supreme Court on Monday (March 4) refused to entertain a PIL seeking directions to the Centre/State governments to consider the reasonable demands of the protesting farmers and to allow the protesters to move to Delhi.
The Bench of Justices Surya Kant and KV Viswanathan permitted the case to be withdrawn, taking into consideration the petitioner's request to amend the petition.
Notably, before passing the order, Justice Kant expressed reservations about the manner in which the petition had been filed, saying,
"You don't file a petition on the basis of news items...you should do your own homework...these are very serious issues and a person who is really committed, who is sincere and serious to these issues only should come file...not everyone..."
It was further remarked that people should not bring such cases to the top Court only for "publicity purposes". The Court also suggested that the petitioner should consider assisting the High Court, where the matter is already pending consideration.
Briefly put, the public interest litigation (PIL), filed by Agnostos Theos, Managing Director of Sikh Chamber of Commerce, sought directions to the Union and State governments to consider "reasonable demands" of protesting farmers [wrt Minimum Support Price (MSP) for crops, etc.] and to ensure their free movement through public transport across national capital borders.
Filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, the plea stated that protesting farmers were being treated unfairly by the governments. It pointed out that farmers from Punjab had been detained in disrespectful, harsh and aggressive ways for simply wanting to travel to Delhi in their private vehicles.
Relying on Article 19(1) of the Constitution, the petitioner sought inter-alia (i) a direction to authorities to not cause hindrance in farmers' peaceful march and gathering in the national capital, (ii) a direction to the National Human Rights Commission to enquire and submit a report on alleged human rights violations by the police force's "brutal attack and assault" on protesting farmers, and (iii) a direction to authorities to take action against those who are defaming farmers and Sikhs, or hurling abuses, derogatory terms and threats, or sowing dissension disrupting the communal harmony in the country.
States of Haryana, Punjab, Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh and NCT of Delhi were impleaded as respondents in the case.
Case Title: Agnostos Theos v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 139/2024