Supreme Court refuses to entertain fresh PIL against blocking of highways by farmers

The Supreme Court on Monday refused to entertain a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking directions against blocking of national highways by farmers protesting near the Shambhu border between Punjab and Haryana [Gaurav Luthra v. Union of India and Others]..A division bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Manmohan said a Public Interest Litigation petition related to the farmers protest was already pending before the top court."Why was this plea filed. It gives a wrong impression. We have taken some initiatives and despite that you come here," the Court said while referring to the case in which it has formed an expert committee to look into the demands of farmers. .The farmers have been demanding a legal guarantee for Minimum Support Price (MSP) for their produce and loan waivers, among other things.At present, the farmers have suspended their march to Delhi after facing tear gas shelling from the Haryana police on Sunday at Shambu border. The farmers had started to march towards Delhi on Friday last week..Today, a plea filed by one Gaurav Luthra, an RTI activist and a resident of Punjab, for directions against blocking of National Highways and railway tracks by the farmers, was listed before the top court.Luthra claimed the State of Punjab is being targeted by foreign, external and antinational forces with the intention to use the farmers and farmer unions to de-stabilise the state.He sought opening of barricades at Shambu border at least once a week in public interest. The border had been blocked by Haryana Police to prevent farmers' march to Delhi. The border should open for the convenience of public, the PIL prayed..In September, the top court had constituted a committee headed by retired Punjab and Haryana High Court judge Justice Nawab Singh to look into the demands and grievances of farmers agitating at the Shambhu border..The counsel representing Luhtra today argued before the Court that while grievances of farmers were dealt with, the plight of commuters was not being addressed.The Court remarked that PIL appeared to be aimed at publicity."He is not the only conscience keeper of the society. Do not file such petitions.. we do not want to add matters to the one which is already pending. You want to withdraw or not. There is already a matter on larger public interest issue. Impression is this is for publicity and playing to the gallery!," it said.The Court then dismissed the PIL, with the liberty to the petitioner to assist it in the pending matter."There is already one PIL pending on the same subject. We will not entertain more petitions on the same issue, thus dismissed. Liberty to petitioner to assist court when the main matter is taken up," it ordered