Today, the Supreme Court refused to entertain a public interest litigation (PIL) that sought directions to prevent the blocking of national highways by farmers protesting near the Shambhu border between Punjab and Haryana.

A division bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Manmohan noted that a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) related to the farmers' protest was already pending before the Supreme Court.

"Why was this plea filed. It gives a wrong impression. We have taken some initiatives and despite that you come here," the Court said while referring to the case in which it has formed an expert committee to look into the demands of farmers.

Farmers have been demanding a legal guarantee for the Minimum Support Price (MSP) for their produce and loan waivers, among other issues. Currently, they have suspended their march to Delhi after facing tear gas shelling by Haryana police at the Shambu border on Sunday. The march, which began on Friday, was halted due to the clashes.

Today, a plea filed by Gaurav Luthra, an RTI activist and Punjab resident, was listed before the Supreme Court. Luthra sought directions to prevent the blocking of national highways and railway tracks by the farmers.

He claimed that Punjab was being targeted by external and anti-national forces attempting to use farmers and farmer unions to destabilize the state. Luthra requested that the barricades at the Shambu border be opened at least once a week in the public interest, arguing that the border, blocked by Haryana police to prevent the farmers' march to Delhi, should be opened for the convenience of the public.

In September, the Supreme Court had formed a committee led by retired Punjab and Haryana High Court judge Justice Nawab Singh to address the grievances of farmers protesting at the Shambu border. Today, Luthra’s counsel argued that while the farmers' issues were being dealt with, the inconvenience faced by commuters was being overlooked. The Court remarked that the PIL appeared to be aimed at publicity.

"He is not the only conscience keeper of the society. Do not file such petitions.. we do not want to add matters to the one which is already pending. You want to withdraw or not. There is already a matter on larger public interest issue. Impression is this is for publicity and playing to the gallery!," it said.

The Court subsequently dismissed the PIL, granting the petitioner the liberty to assist in the pending matter.