Chandigarh: Stating that the highways cannot be used as parking space, the Supreme Court on Monday asked the Punjab and Haryana authorities to hold a meeting within a week for partial opening of the Shambhu border on Delhi-Amritsar national highway where the protesting farmers have been camping since February 13.
A Bench led by Justice Surya Kant asked the DGPs of both the states along with the senior superintendents of police and deputy commissioners of Patiala (Punjab) and Ambala (Haryana) to hold a meeting within a week to explore the possibility of opening of at least one lane for the passage of ambulance, senior citizens, women, students, essential services and commuters of nearby areas.
The top court also asked the Punjab government to persuade the farmers to remove their tractors from the road, saying that the highways cannot be used as parking space, after the Punjab advocate general Gurminder Singh submitted that it was a six-lane highway and at least one lane should be opened on both sides of the highway.
The apex court was hearing the Haryana government’s petition challenging the July 10 order of Punjab and Haryana High Court requiring it to remove the barricades at Shambhu border within a week.
On behalf of the Haryana government, solicitor general Tushar Mehta submitted that the DGPs of both the states could think of a solution. Both the states also submitted a list of ``neutral’’ persons to be included in the committee proposed to be set up to talk to the protesting farmers.
Lauding the efforts of both the states, the Bench said it would pass a detailed order on the composition of the committee and its mandate on August 22 – the next date of hearing.
The Supreme Court turned down a request made by Mehta and additional advocate general Lokesh Sinhal to stay the high court’s ordering a judicial probe into the death of a protesting farmer allegedly due to a bullet fired by the police. Noting that the committee has been asked to examine if the force used by police was proportionate or not, Mehta said that a judicial commission should never ascertain this fact as it could demoralise the police force.
The Bench held that the committee’s findings were ultimately an opinion and it would be for the High court to accept or reject the same.
