On Tuesday, March 12, the Supreme Court refused to consider a public interest litigation (PIL) petition seeking the prompt removal of farmers from the borders of Delhi. This decision comes amidst the ongoing farmers' protest, where they are demanding minimum price guarantees for their crops.

Social worker and former Bharatiya Janata Party MLA Nand Kishore Garg took steps to clear the border areas by presenting a plea to the apex court.

Nevertheless, a bench consisting of Justices Surya Kant and KV Viswanathan declined to entertain the PIL. Instead, they instructed the petitioner to address the matter in the Punjab and Haryana High Court, where it is presently being deliberated upon.

Dr. Garg's petition, filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India through Advocate-on-Record Mukesh Kumar Singh & Co, sought the removal of farmers who have been blocking arterial roads and highways connecting Delhi with states such as Punjab, Haryana, Uttar Pradesh, and Rajasthan. He contended that these protests have significantly inconvenienced the general public, affecting their livelihoods, access to health services, educational pursuits, and other essential activities.

Expressing concern, he highlighted that such protests have become a recurring problem, holding the common people hostage to what he described as 'illegal intransigence' by farmers. The petition argued that these protests represent a direct assault on the rule of law, which forms the cornerstone of Indian democracy.

Dr. Garg underscored the importance of referencing legal precedents and court rulings concerning public protests, highlighting that the right to protest in public spaces is not absolute and can be subject to reasonable limitations. Moreover, he emphasized the necessity of striking a balance between the rights of protesters and those of the broader public.

“The protesters are flouting the rules including the order and judgment passed by this court from time to time holding that the public places must not be allowed to obstruct the fundamental rights of the other common citizens of the country.''

The petitioner not only requested an injunction against protesting farmers but also sought "comprehensive and exhaustive guidelines" pertaining to restrictions on such protests and demonstrations that result in the obstruction of public spaces.

The Supreme Court's decision to decline consideration of this recent Public Interest Litigation (PIL) coincides with the resumption of the march by thousands of Indian farmers towards Delhi, despite heavy barricades and increased police presence, as they strive to compel the government to address their grievances. Earlier, the protest had been temporarily suspended at the conclusion of February following the tragic death of a young farmer during the demonstrations.

Case Details : Nand Kishore Garg v. Union of India & Ors. | Writ Petition (Civil) No. 162 of 2024