New Delhi: The Supreme Court has acknowledged the right of farmers to hold non-violent protests and asked the central government to consider putting the farm laws on hold as long as negotiations with protesting farmers were on.
We asked readers: Is the Supreme Court’s intervention in executive issues such as farmers’ protests justified?
Here is what some of them said:
‘Supreme Court’s intervention gives a feeling of security’
Yes, I truly feel that Supreme Court’s intervention in executive issues of farmers’ protest is justified as it is the most powerful and most trusted authority of India which the people of the country truly believe in. For the people of India, the decision of the Supreme Court is the last and unanimously accepted decision. So, the intervention of the Supreme Court in matters of execution gives a feeling of security. Sometimes, the government takes some decisions without involving the public in the decision-making process; this can cause loss of trust in government, which is now happening with farmers.
Aishwary Songirkar, Pune. Twitter: @ForeverOpulence
‘Supreme Court must look into matters related to rights’
The Supreme Court must not waste its precious time on executive matters unless it is of utmost importance or until it is clearly violating the rule of law, or is arbitrary in nature.
But in this whole farmer agitation, the right to protest and a citizen’s fundamental right to free movement comes in. Here the apex court must step in and look onto the matters related to the rights of both the groups. The court must act in defense of the people who are peacefully protesting and should further protect them from being victimised, and at the same time, the court must see that the right to protest doesn’t extend to denying other individuals’ rights.
Shivam Jha, Gurugram. Twitter: @shivamjha6701
‘Role of judiciary is not to decide on policy’
The role of the judiciary is not to decide on policy or make laws for governance. Our Constitution has wisely decided to separate the judiciary from the legislature, while the job of legislature is to make the laws, the role of the judiciary is to render justice, adjudicate whether these laws are being followed in execution, and prevent governments or individuals from trampling upon fundamental rights. In interfering with the farmers’ laws that the government passed in the Parliament, the apex court is doing exactly what is beyond its mandate, and in choosing to take these types of cases, it is also delaying the important cases in which it is supposed to deliver justice.
“It is a weak society that appeals to judicial paternalism to solve its problems,” said Justice Venkatachaliah.
Vidyuth Chikoti, San Francisco
‘Supreme Court’s intervention is completely justified’
Since we were children, we were taught that the Constitution of India shared power horizontally between executive, legislature and judiciary. The judicial system was set up to create a check and balance among the three organs. The Supreme Court’s intervention in the farmers’ protest is completely justified. If not the Supreme Court, who would harmonise the relationship between the citizens and the government? It is the law of the land that whatever judgment the court gives, the country has to abide by it. In the citizens’ mind, there is a sense of belief that if no one, the court will listen and drive out a solution for them.
Sakshi Dubey, New Delhi. Twitter: @_dubey_sakshi
‘Judiciary’s task is to check constitutional validity of new Acts’
While I support the ongoing talks for the dispute resolution, I can’t agree that it is the task assigned to our judiciary. There are many issues which want attention. Amidst the protests, the task of judiciary, in my view, is to check the constitutional validity of new Acts, if that’s the prime concern. Along with that, the constitutionality of this agitation as well as the inability of the administration to clear the blockade should also be taken cognisance of. Siege of the highways are depriving other citizens’ right of free movement at public places, which is anything but constitutional.
Harshil Mehta, Ahmedabad. Twitter: @MehHarshil
‘Supreme Court’s intervention justified’
Looking at this protest from a neutral perspective, governments don’t shed a tear unless you block roads and grab media attention. A fundamental right to protest is really important, but blocking any road and causing inconvenience in daily life of millions of people regardless of the cause behind it, is unquestionably wrong. I believe the Supreme Court is the only unbiased agency in the country, although some recent judgments may ask us to question the prior statement. The Supreme Court represents a collective consciousness of Indian intellectuals. Our sympathies and sentiments will always be with farmers, but thankfully the court takes decisions with laws and facts. It’s intervention is justified.
Dr Swanit Deshpande. Twitter: @swanitdeshpande
‘Supreme Court is accountable for protecting rights of citizens’
Even when the farmers promised to do peaceful protests, they had to face the local police who dug pits, used water cannons, tear gas to stop the protests. The media defamed the protests and demonised farmers by calling them ‘Khalistani terrorists’. The Supreme Court is accountable for protecting the rights of the citizens of this country and it can also intervene in matters like these to protect the rights of the farmers and make them get justice. As citizens of this country, farmers do have all the rights to peacefully protest against what they feel is unjust to them. If the issue of Covid-19 arises, then farmers should be given a certain guideline but not to be told to completely stop the protests and accept whatever the government does to them.
— Poonam Chanchlani, Jaipur. Twitter: @mnameispoona
‘Supreme Court can get govt, farmers to talk to resolve conflict’
The Supreme Court, the guardian of the Constitution, is vested with the authority to decide on the constitutionality of an enactment, thereby keeping the legislature and executive under check. Since the farmers’ bills do not violate any constitutional provisions but the loopholes of the bill stand in opposition to farmers’ interests, any interference from the apex court will fail to vindicate itself. As observed by the court itself, farmers exercise a constitutional right to protest till it doesn’t spill over to vandalising property or harming human lives. Though the apex court certainly carries the potential to get both the parties to talk in an attempt to resolve the conflict.
Kaushani Chakrabarti, Kolkata
‘Supreme Court has a role to play when citizens’ rights are affected’
The Supreme Court is the highest judicial court and has a role to play whenever any issue affects rights of citizens in one way or another as given in the Constitution. Farmers have the right to protest peacefully, the same way citizens also have rights to move freely, especially in this pandemic situation. Citizens’ medical conditions and necessities should not be harmed by protest. Whether the issue of farmers’ protest is valid or not that is one question, on which farmers and the government need to decide. But whenever any protest harms other citizens’ rights and if anyone files petition in the Supreme Court, then its intervention is justified. Therefore, the Supreme Court said to check that if the manner of protest could be altered in a way that it does not affect citizens’ right of movement.
— Rachana Oza, Ahmedabad. Twitter: @RachanaOza_1
‘Right to protest peacefully must be defended by apex court’
Though the Supreme Court itself has recognised separation of powers as a part of the basic structure, the present situation necessitated judicial intervention. The protests had been going on for months in Punjab and have gained national attention since they arrived in Delhi. By trampling human rights of peaceful protesters, the executive has completely proved to be incapable to handle the protests. It is important to note that the judiciary has intervened after executive has had unproductive talks with farmers and not interfered with the executive realm. Whatever the decision be on farm laws, the right to protest peacefully against the executive must be defended by the apex court because giving the executive a high hand in such situations would effectively undermine individual rights.
Kartik Garg, Barnala, Punjab. Twitter: @gargkartik2001
Also read: Reader view: Government needs to communicate with citizens better over reforms
Every right in the constitution should be upheld by all arms of the democracy.
Are hartals and protests which violate the freedom of millions of citizens by disrupting / destroying public conveniences, peaceful protest?
Just asking