Zira factory protest: Clamour of some can’t leave court to turn a deaf ear to those not crying, says HC

The observations came in a case pending before HC since July, when a private firm approached the court, complaining against losses being incurred by it due to a protest by locals who have shut its plant down

The protesters do not derive any superior right merely because of their capacity to assemble together and to make themselves heard, the Punjab and Haryana high court has said in a dispute between a private firm and agitating protesters in Ferozepur, running into five months now.

The firm, an alcohol-making unit, is located at Mansurwal village of Zira assembly in Ferozepur. The locals have accused the firm of violating environmental norms. But reports submitted in court have given a clean chit to the firm. (Getty Images/iStockphoto)

The court not only sought details of leaders of the protesters but also constituted a committee to evaluate losses incurred by the firm.

The state has also been asked to deposit ₹15 crore in the high court registry, which may eventually be given to the firm as compensation.

“Those who are silent and suffer cannot be deemed to have waived their rights to carry on their trade, occupation or business. Their sufferance cannot be interpreted as their support. The process of law stands not only for those who make themselves heard but it also must discharge its obligation towards those who remain unheard,” the bench of justice Vinod S Bhardwaj said.

The observations came in a case pending before the high court since July, when a private firm, Malbros International Private Limited, approached the court, complaining against losses being incurred by it due to a protest by locals who have shut its plant down.

The firm, an alcohol-making unit, is located at Mansurwal village of Zira assembly in Ferozepur. The locals have accused the firm of violating environmental norms. But reports submitted in court have given a clean chit to the firm.

The government was told on multiple occasions to remove the protesters from site. But the government, even though admitted that the firm was following all laid down laws and had all requisite clearances, failed to remove the protesters.

‘Govt allowed problem to swell’

“The clamour of the some cannot leave the court to turn a deaf ear to those not crying or airing their grievances and it cannot be construed that they have none,” the court said, further adding that instead of resolving the issue the government had instead allowed the problem to swell to create compelling circumstances for the court to shoulder the responsibility of their inaction.

The court took note of protests being reported every now and then in different parts of the state and remarked that the tendency has been repeatedly growing.

Nearly 70 lakh men hours were lost in Punjab in various protests last year alone, the court said, referring to such protests and hardships of general public, adding that although such claims may not be supported by any quantified data, it was invariably startling and shocked the judicial conscience about the state of affairs and the harassment caused to the general public, who might not stand up in equal numbers to protest against the same and silently suffer.

Senior advocate Puneet Bali, who appeared in this case, said this order should serve as a warning for the governments in future. “The government was supposed to uphold the majesty of law. On three occasions, the court ordered for removal of protesters. The courts can’t be a mute spectator to a situation where the government is showing helplessness,” Bali remarked, referring to the order on the constitution of a committee for determination of losses and order to deposit ₹15 crore with the high court.

‘Put mechanism in place to deal with violators causing damage’

As per proceedings of the case, the government could not give any plausible reason why it was unable to remove to protesters. Resultantly, it has issued contempt notices to key officers concerning the case, including the state’s home secretary.

The court opined that the authorities must set in place an appropriate mechanism so that violators causing damage to public or private properties feel the heat and learn to protest with responsibility and are held accountable for the consequences of their actions.

“The process of law and the sovereign cannot project a fractured face. When it unwields its authority, the sovereign as well as rule of law loses credibility (sic),” the court lamented.