Read Time: 04 minutes
Justice Kant expressed his displeasure with the way the petition was filed saying that it was a serious issue and petitions could not be filed on the basis of news reports
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and KV Vishwanathan of the Supreme Court today allowed withdrawal of a plea seeking direction to the central government to consider farmers' reasonable demands, and free movements of public and transportation vehicles across border of the city of Delhi.
"Such petitions should not be filed for publicity", said the bench while allowing withdrawal of PIL.
Agnostos Theos, Managing Director of the Sikh Chamber of Commerce, filed a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution for a direction to the relevant authorities to ensure fair and respectful treatment to the farmers, and not cause hindrance in their peaceful march and gathering in the national capital on "Dilli Chalo" call on February 13, 2024.
He also sought a direction to unblock the social media accounts and respect the right to free speech of the people sharing information about the farmer’s protest and to register FIR to probe such unconstitutional act.
The petitioner questioned the violent and aggressive show of force by the Haryana police to restrict the protesting the farmers from exercising their constitutional rights as enshrined under Article 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution.
It also claimed that the Government of India, and its police officials, and many news reporters of the country, in biased portrayal of the protesting farmers, have been calling them as “Khalistani” or “foreign agents” etc.
"The farmers, who feed us, toil for the nation, are being treated as if they are terrorists trying to cross into India," the petitioner claimed.
The petition claimed that respondent governments have employed aggressive and violent measures like usage of tear gas, rubber bullet pellets, expired shells etc against peacefully protesting farmers, leading to serious and grievous injuries among the farmers.
Apart from the Union of India, the petitioner named States of Haryana, Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, Punjab and Govt of NCT of Delhi and the National Human Rights Commission as respondents.
Case Title: Agnostos Theos vs. Union of India & Ors
Please Login or Register
