'Have Strangulated Entire City': SC on Farmer Group’s Plea to Allow Protest

The SC bench further told the farmer group: "You cannot come to the court & at the same time continue with protest."

The Supreme Court.

(File Photo: PTI)

The Supreme Court on Friday, 1 October, pulled up the farmers' organisation, Kisan Mahapanchayat, for seeking permission to stage a Satyagraha at Jantar Mantar against the farm laws.

The top court said after blocking highways and strangulating the city, the demonstrators now want to come inside to protest.

A bench headed by Justice AM Khanwilkar said: "You cannot come to the court and at the same time continue with protest."

The bench queried the counsel representing the organisation if they were also protesting against the judicial system.

'No Purpose to Approach Court When You Want to Protest'

The bench also comprising Justice CT Ravikumar was hearing a plea by the Kisan Mahapanchayat seeking permission to stage the satyagraha as a mark of protest against the three farm laws.

The plea sought directions to allow the staging of the satyagraha as it was permitted to the Samyukt Kisan Morcha farmers.

The Kisan Mahapanchayat's counsel submitted before the bench that his client had been asking permission from the Delhi Police.

The bench told him that after approaching the courts challenging the laws, what is the point of continuing the protests? "If you have faith in courts, pursue that for urgent hearing instead of protesting," it added.

The bench also told the counsel that the demonstrators have right to protest, but cannot destroy property, adding that this should stop.

The counsel for the farmers' organisation said the highways have been blocked by the police and "we have been detained", adding that his client was not part of the protest blocking the highways.

The bench emphasised that there was no purpose of protest once the organisation approaches the court.

"There is no purpose to approach the court when you want to protest," it added.

The court asked the counsel to come on record stating his client is not part of the protest, to which the latter agreed.

The bench ordered to serve the copy of the petition to the office of AG and listed the matter for further hearing on 4 October.