On Monday, the Supreme Court proposed a phased removal of barricades at the Shambhu border between Punjab and Haryana.

The border had been sealed to prevent Punjab farmers from marching to Delhi to press their demands.

A Bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan recommended that concerned police officials from both States and the Centre meet to discuss the situation. They emphasized that the parties involved should not wait for a court order to begin steps to open the border.

"A meeting of concerned police officials may be held, but If both sides are able to resolve such modalities, they need not await an order of this court and can give force to resolutions," the Court said.

The Supreme Court posted the matter for further hearing on August 22. The Bench, comprising Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan, was addressing Haryana's petition challenging a recent directive by the Punjab and Haryana High Court to open the Shambhu border, which connects Punjab and Haryana. The border had been closed by Haryana to prevent farmers from Punjab from moving towards Delhi to press their demands.

In previous hearings, the top court had affirmed the farmers' right to express their grievances and instructed that neutral parties be involved by both the Central and Punjab governments to help resolve the issues. The Court had also directed the two States to maintain the status quo at the border and to submit proposals for a phased removal of the barricades.

Additionally, the Court was considering an appeal from Haryana challenging a Punjab and Haryana High Court order that mandated the formation of a committee, including a retired High Court judge and two Additional Director Generals of Police (ADGPs), to investigate the death of farmer Shubhkaran Singh from Bathinda, who was killed in January during clashes at the Khanauri border.

During today’s hearing, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta for Haryana and Advocate General Gurminder Singh for Punjab presented the names of committee members tasked with negotiating with the protesting farmers. The Court appreciated the submissions and commended the composition of the committee.

"Senior number 1 this person is very qualified. We appreciate both States, the names are completely apolitical and for the genuine causes of farmers and agriculturalists," the Court said.

In response to Solicitor General Mehta's argument that the investigation into the death might demoralize the police force, the Court observed that the probe could, in fact, strengthen the force rather than weaken it. The Court urged both States to collaborate and seek common ground in addressing the situation.

The Court remarked, "Sometimes, a judicial probe can strengthen the hands of the police. Since we are intervening in a manner we don't usually, and you have both provided names for the committee, Punjab can also discuss the issue and suggest that perhaps tanks and JCBs should not be used. SG Mehta, you should ensure that ambulances and vehicles for girls are allowed."

Subsequently, the Court suggested that concerned police officials hold a meeting to discuss the removal of the barricades. Additional Advocate General Lokesh Sinhal and Solicitor General Mehta for Haryana requested a stay on the judicial probe, but the Court declined to intervene. It emphasized that the committee's role is limited to making recommendations. The top court had previously rejected a similar stay request on April 1.