Supreme Court Rebukes Punjab Government and Farmer Leaders Amidst Dallewal Hunger Strike
New Delhi, India – The Supreme Court of India on Thursday sharply criticized the Punjab government and certain farmer leaders for allegedly creating a misleading narrative surrounding the ongoing hunger strike by farmer leader Jagjit Singh Dallewal. The court emphasized that it had never ordered the disruption of Dallewal’s protest, but solely expressed concern for his deteriorating health and urged the provision of immediate medical assistance. A bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan expressed its disapproval of what it perceived as irresponsible statements made by Punjab officials and some farmer leaders, which it felt were exacerbating the already tense situation. The court went so far as to question the sincerity of certain farmer leaders towards Dallewal’s well-being.
The controversy stems from Dallewal’s ongoing fast, undertaken to pressure the central government to fulfill promises made to farmers during the 2020-2021 farm law protests. These promises included a legal guarantee for Minimum Support Price (MSP) for crops, a key demand of the farmers’ movement. Dallewal’s health has reportedly deteriorated significantly, prompting concerns from various quarters. The Supreme Court, taking suo moto cognizance of the situation, directed the Punjab government to ensure Dallewal received necessary medical attention. However, the court’s intervention appears to have been misconstrued, leading to allegations of attempts to forcibly end Dallewal’s fast.
Punjab Advocate General Gurminder Singh refuted the court’s assertions, denying any attempts to complicate the matter. He assured the bench that efforts were underway to persuade Dallewal to accept medical help without abandoning his protest. Recognizing the presence of Punjab’s Chief Secretary and Director General of Police (DGP) during the virtual hearing, the bench expressed hope that its message would be effectively communicated throughout the state’s administrative and law enforcement machinery. The court directed both officials to submit affidavits confirming their compliance with a previous December 20 order mandating the transfer of Dallewal to nearby medical facilities established by the state government.
The Supreme Court’s intervention highlights the delicate balance between the right to protest and the state’s responsibility to protect the health and well-being of its citizens. The court’s strong words for both the Punjab government and certain farmer leaders underscore its displeasure with the perceived politicization of Dallewal’s health. The bench explicitly questioned the motives behind the allegedly misleading media statements, hinting at a potential attempt to exploit the situation for political gain. This incident also underscores the complex relationship between the judiciary, the executive, and civil society organizations, especially in politically charged situations like farmer protests.
Adding another layer to the legal proceedings, the Supreme Court has also issued a notice to the central government in response to a fresh petition filed on Dallewal’s behalf. This petition seeks to compel the government to honor the promises made to protesting farmers in 2021, particularly the implementation of a legally guaranteed MSP for crops. This move signals a potential widening of the legal battle, bringing the central government directly into the fray. The court’s decision to issue notice signals its willingness to examine the merits of the petition, potentially leading to a broader legal debate on the government’s commitments to farmers.
The Supreme Court has scheduled the next hearing for January 6, indicating its intention to closely monitor the situation and ensure Dallewal receives adequate medical care. The court’s continued involvement reflects its commitment to safeguarding fundamental rights while upholding the rule of law. The upcoming hearing could prove pivotal in determining the future course of action, both in terms of Dallewal’s health and the broader issue of the government’s unfulfilled promises to farmers. The outcome of this legal battle holds significant implications for the agricultural sector and the ongoing dialogue between farmers and the government. The Supreme Court’s engagement holds the potential to either facilitate a resolution or further complicate the already strained relationship between the two sides.