The Punjab and Haryana High Court made an oral observation today, stating that while farmers have the right to protest, it is subject to reasonable limitations.

A division bench consisting of Acting Chief Justice (ACJ) GS Sandhawalia and Justice Lapita Banerji heard pleas related to the ongoing farmer protests. One plea challenged the government's alleged obstructive actions, while another sought prompt action to address the protests, which include demands for a law ensuring Minimum Support Price (MSP), among other grievances.

In an oral directive, ACJ GS Sandhawalia urged the Punjab Government to ensure that protestors do not gather in large numbers, emphasizing that while they have the right to protest, it must be within the bounds of reasonable restrictions, as stated by the judge.

The judge also suggested that if necessary, tractors and trolleys could be transported on trucks. Today, the Governments of Punjab and Haryana submitted their affidavits, and a status report was filed by the Union government in compliance with the court's previous instructions. However, the Court directed the Centre to submit a status report containing the latest developments and details of the discussions with farmers in the upcoming hearing.

During the previous hearing, the Court had urged both parties to seek an amicable resolution. The central government had also expressed its willingness to engage in negotiations on the matter. Consequently, a meeting was arranged last week in line with these efforts.

The petitioner, Uday Pratap Singh, a lawyer based in Chandigarh, has challenged the "obstructive actions" taken by the government. These actions include the sealing of the border between Haryana and Punjab, as well as the suspension of mobile internet services and bulk SMS in various districts of Haryana.

In the previous hearing, Singh alleged that the Haryana government has employed violent tactics, including the use of weapons such as rubber pellets and tear gas cannons against peaceful protestors. However, the Haryana government countered these claims by asserting that the protest is unauthorized and organized without seeking permission from the authorities. It further stated that six districts in the state, namely Yamunanagar, Charkhi Dadri, Kurukshetra, Jhajjar, Panchkula, and Karnal, have already designated areas for conducting peaceful demonstrations, and other districts are also instructed to identify suitable locations for such protests.

The Punjab government also submitted that while the situation is tense, it remains under control, with all necessary arrangements, including medical facilities, in place. Additionally, it stated that it has no objection to the protest as long as it remains peaceful.

"They have right to protest peacefully," the ACJ then remarked. Previously also, the Court had observed that "right of free passage of the public at large is to be balanced with right of freedom of speech and expression and that none of them existing in isolation can be put-forth so that the general public is not put to any inconvenience."

Case Title: Uday Pratap Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors.