E-Paper
Farmers ‘hell bent’ on stopping lifeline of northern states: Haryana govt
The submission was filed in an affidavit before the division bench of acting chief justice GS Sandhawalia and justice Vikas Suri, hearing two public interest litigations (PIL) pertaining to the farmers’ ‘Delhi Chalo’ march on Thursday.
Farmer unions are “hell bent” on stopping the lifeline of northern states and their movement has instilled a “sense of fear” among the people of the state, the Haryana government submitted before the Punjab and Haryana high court on Thursday.
The submission was filed in an affidavit before the division bench of acting chief justice GS Sandhawalia and justice Vikas Suri, hearing two public interest litigations (PIL) pertaining to the farmers’ ‘Delhi Chalo’ march on Thursday.
The Haryana government submitted that the protest is “unauthorised” and was “organised without seeking any permission” from the authorities.
Haryana in its status report said that during the last two days, every effort was made by the agitators to break the barricades erected by the police on the Haryana border.
“They are moving in modified tractors and holding weapons. The violent movement on national/ state highway had instilled a sense of fear amongst the citizens,” said the report.
The affidavit also referred to the clashes of agitators with police at Datasingh Wala naka in Jind in which more than dozen police personnel were injured. The agitators created a ruckus at Shambhu border in Amabala and have tried to break barricades, said the Haryana government.
“Hence agitation of the farmers’ unions is not peaceful and considering past experience it is going to cause huge damage to common citizens as well as to the institutions,” said the affidavit.
The Haryana government also submitted in the affidavit that the agitators will be made responsible for making loss/ damage to the public and private properties and expenses incurred by state in managing surcharged agitation as per the law of the land.
Referring to the last agitation held in Delhi, the Haryana government status report pointed out that “it was not only violent, but the agitators also indulged in committing crimes and created ruckus in Delhi on the occasion of January 26, 2021, when they removed the Tricolour at the Red Fort.”
It submitted that the Haryana government has identified sites in Yamunanagar, Charkhi Dadri, Kurukshetra, Jhajjar, Panchkula and Karnal for the farmers to hold peaceful protests.
The Punjab government submitted that the situation is tense but under control.
The high court was hearing two PILs -- one filed by advocate Uday Pratap Singh, a resident of Amravati Enclave, Panchkula, who said that the “unlawful sealing” of the border between Haryana and Punjab, particularly at Shambhu near Ambala, by the Haryana authorities was done with an apparent objective of preventing farmers from exercising their constitutional right to assemble and protest peacefully.
The second petition was filed by advocate Arvind Seth, a resident of Sector 5, Mansa Devi Complex, Panchkula. Through this PIL, he sought directions to ensure that all national and state highways and railway tracks in Punjab and Haryana are not blocked by the farmers and immediate action be taken against the said agitators.
File status report after meeting: HC
The Punjab and Haryana high court has asked the Centre and state government to file status report based on their meeting with the farmers which is scheduled to be held on Thursday.
During the hearing, the additional solicitor general of India, Satya Pal Jain, apprised the court that a meeting has been scheduled between the Union ministers and representatives of the farmers unions. Following this the bench directed, “Let short affidavit be filed by the respondents on February 20”.
Petitioner seeks UN intervention, invites court’s displeasure
During the hearing, the additional solicitor general of India also informed the court that petitioner Uday Pratap Singh has written to the UN Secretary-General for international intervention. The bench expressed disappointment over the petitioner’s letter to the United Nations, seeking international intervention after invoking the court’s jurisdiction. The petitioner agreed to withdraw the letter.
