sc-to-hear-haryana-s-plea-against-barricade-removal

The Haryana government had set up the barricades on the Ambala-New Delhi national highway after farmers announced a march to Delhi to support various demands, including a legal guarantee of minimum support price (MSP) for crops.

The high court had ordered the removal of the barricades on an experimental basis to avoid inconvenience to the general public. However, the Haryana government has appealed against this order, arguing that removing barricades would lead to law and order issues. The government has expressed concerns about the likelihood of tension, obstruction, sabotage, and risk to human life and property.

The state government has also pointed out that the high court did not pass any orders on its affidavit, which pleaded that the barricading could only be removed if the farmers shifted their protest from the National Highway. The government has emphasised that law and order is a state subject under the Constitution and it is responsible for assessing ground realities and threat perception.

On July 12, the Supreme Court asked the Haryana government to remove the barricades and questioned its authority to block the highway. The court had observed that the state must regulate traffic and should open the highway while regulating it. The Haryana government has filed an appeal against the high court's decision, which is now scheduled for hearing on July 22.

"It is humbly submitted that though the petitioner is most concerned about any inconvenience of any kind caused to the general public, the present SLP has been filed on an urgent basis," the plea said.

“Despite the categorical submission regarding law and order issues that may arise, the threat to life and property, and despite a plea to shift the agitators out of the National Highway, the high court has on an 'experimental basis' directed for the opening of the Shambhu Border without passing any directions against the agitators," it said.

"How can a state block a highway? It must regulate traffic. We are saying open it but regulate," the bench had said on June 12 after the counsel informed the bench about the state's intention of filing an appeal in the apex court.