Introduction:
The Supreme Court is currently hearing a contempt petition against Punjab Chief Secretary K.A.P. Sinha and Director General of Police (DGP) Punjab for non-compliance with its earlier orders regarding medical aid for farmer protest leader Jagjit Singh Dallewal. The leader has been on a hunger strike since November 26, 2023, at the Khanauri border, demanding a statutory guarantee for the Minimum Support Price (MSP) for crops. Despite his deteriorating health, including being a cancer patient and suffering from age-related ailments, Dallewal has refused medical intervention. The case, titled Labh Singh v. K.A.P. Sinha (Diary No. 61011-2024), has attracted nationwide attention, as the Court balances the state’s duty to ensure compliance with its directives and the complex dynamics of the farmers’ protest.
Arguments of Both Sides:
The Punjab Government, represented by Advocate General Gurminder Singh, argued that compliance with the Court’s directive to provide immediate medical aid to Dallewal was hindered by on-ground resistance from protesters. Singh informed the Court that over 7,000 personnel were mobilized to ensure compliance, but the situation was further complicated by the Punjab Bandh called by farmers’ organizations. The bandh led to road blockades and heightened tensions, making it challenging to shift Dallewal to a hospital or makeshift facility set up 700 meters from the protest site. Singh further highlighted that negotiators and intervenors had engaged with the protestors, resulting in a conditional proposal from them: Dallewal would accept medical aid if the Central Government agreed to direct talks. Singh requested additional time for compliance, emphasizing that unilateral intervention might lead to collateral damage.
On the other hand, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Haryana Government, reiterated the Centre’s stance that its direct involvement could escalate tensions. Mehta declined to comment on the proposal presented by the Punjab AG, stating that he had no instructions from the Central Government. The Court, while hearing these submissions, noted that its primary concern was compliance with its orders, irrespective of ongoing negotiations or external complexities.
Court’s Judgment:
The Supreme Court, comprising a vacation bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, expressed dissatisfaction with the Punjab Government’s earlier compliance report, describing it as inadequate. However, considering the complexity of the situation and the interests of justice, the Court granted the Punjab Government an additional three days to ensure compliance with its directives. The bench emphasized that its focus remained on the implementation of its orders and declined to comment on the broader negotiations between the farmers and the Central Government. The Court directed the virtual presence of the Punjab Chief Secretary and DGP during the next hearing scheduled for January 2, 2024.
In its order, the Court acknowledged the efforts made by the Punjab Government, including the deployment of personnel and engagement of negotiators, but reiterated its earlier directive to either shift Dallewal to the makeshift hospital or a well-equipped facility. The bench warned that non-compliance would result in further judicial intervention. Notably, the Court condemned the reported calls for youth mobilization and the possibility of violence at the protest site, remarking that it was “not impressed to see the violent face of the so-called agitation.”
The matter underscores the challenges in balancing judicial directives, the right to protest, and the state’s duty to maintain law and order. The Supreme Court’s measured approach reflects its intent to ensure compliance without exacerbating the sensitive situation at the protest site.