The Supreme Court of India on Wednesday stated that its doors are ‘always open’ to listen to the demands and suggestions of protesting farmers, following their refusal to engage with a committee formed by the Punjab government.
The court’s remarks came after the farmers, led by Jagjit Singh Dallewal, rejected the Punjab government’s efforts to hold talks.
The Punjab government informed the apex court that multiple meetings had been held with Dallewal, who is on an indefinite fast, but the farmers declined the state-appointed committee’s invitation to discuss their grievances.
Punjab Advocate General Gurminder Singh noted that the committee had invited farmers for talks on December 17, but the protesting leaders refused to engage. He suggested that, given the ongoing efforts to persuade the farmers, they should be allowed to present their grievances directly to the court.
In response, the bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan clarified, “We clarify that court’s doors are always open to any suggestion or demand by farmers directly or through their authorised representative.”
The court’s statement emphasized its willingness to hear the farmers’ concerns, either personally or through their representatives.
Additionally, the Supreme Court expressed concern for Dallewal’s health, who has been on a hunger strike since November 26 at the Khanauri border between Punjab and Haryana. A cancer patient, Dallewal had previously refused medical aid, but the court instructed the Punjab government to provide necessary medical attention without delay.
A medical team from the Government Rajindra Hospital in Patiala has been assigned to monitor his health closely.
Dallewal’s fast is part of a larger protest movement in which farmers are demanding a legal guarantee for Minimum Support Price (MSP) for their crops. Along with Dallewal’s 23-day hunger strike, farmers in Punjab have planned a ‘rail roko’ protest, blocking train services for 3 hours at 52 locations across the state.
The ongoing standoff highlights the farmers’ resolve to press for their demands, with the Supreme Court offering a platform to address their grievances, should they choose to present them directly.
