SC refuses to entertain plea for opening of Singhu border, asks Sonipat residents to move HC

The top court said that the invitation to interfere is very tempting but there are High Courts, which can deal with the local issues

The Supreme Court on Monday declined to consider a plea for directions to the governments to clear the roads connecting Delhi and Haryana at Singhu border, blocked by farmer groups protesting against the three farm laws since November 26, last year.

Taking up a plea by Sonepat residents in Haryana that the road blockade posed a hurdle to travel for essential needs, a bench presided over by Justice D Y Chandrachud, said the invitation to interfere in the matter was tempting, but there are High Courts, which can deal with the local issues.

“There is no gross violation of fundamental right. Let us (Supreme Court) not be the court of first recourse. Suppose, tomorrow there is a border dispute between Karnataka and Kerala or some other states. There will be no end to this," the bench, also comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Hima Kohli, said.

Also read: Section 144 imposed in Karnal in view of farmers' protest call over lathicharge

The petitioners had moved the apex court raising the issue of hurdles created in travelling to and from Delhi, particularly for essential needs.

The court, however, said the present matter should be heard by the High Court concerned, as it would be more aware of the local conditions.

“Why don't you approach the High Court being residents of Sonepat? Why are these petitions filed here for publicity? There is no need for us to intervene when High Courts are well versed with the local conditions and what is happening,” the bench told advocate Abhimanyu Bhandari, representing the petitioners.

The counsel, for his part, contended before the bench that Singhu Border is the "umbilical cord" for the people travelling from Haryana to Delhi.

To this, the bench said, “We should trust High Courts”.

The bench emphasised that the petitioners should move the High Court, which would deal with maintaining a balance with freedom to protest and the freedom to access basic amenities.

The petitioners then sought liberty to approach the High Court.

The bench then replied, "Why should we direct the High Court to hear? It is a human issue; the High Court will deal with it the best way”.

The counsel referred to the earlier orders of the top court, which stated that the roads can't be blocked but the bench remained unmoved.

Check out latest videos from DH: