Punjab and Haryana High Court: The Division Bench of G.S. Sandhawalia, ACJ and Lapita Banerji, J., opined that only on account of the fact that some of the protestors had been hiding behind a shield of religious legitimacy by placing the Guru Granth Sahib, would not be a reason for the State to not act against the persons concerned, who were misusing the religious sentiments. The Court further opined that it was apparent from the photographs which had been placed on record that there was no large gathering. Although it was well known that all the agitators from the rural background were busy in harvesting and it was most opportune time to remove the blockage of the road, the State of Punjab and the Union Territory, Chandigarh, were dragging their feet for the reasons best known to them. Thus, the Court deferred the proceedings for 18-04-2024 hoping that the State of Punjab and the Union Territory, Chandigarh, would wake up from their slumber.
The Court stated that despite repeated opportunities, neither the State of Punjab nor the Union Territory, Chandigarh, had been able to give any redressal to the commuters of Chandigarh and SAS Nagar Mohali. Further, because of handful persons sitting and blocking the road, inconvenience was caused to the commuters and residents of the tri-city and the misery was continuing. The Court noted that on 09-10-2023, the Court also impleaded Union of India and the Director General of Police, Punjab had also been summoned in the matter almost one year back.
The Court opined that only because of some of the protestors had been hiding behind a shield of religious legitimacy by placing the Guru Granth Sahib, would not be a reason for the State to not act against the persons concerned, who were misusing the religious sentiments. The Court further opined that it was apparent from the photographs which had been placed on record that there was no large gathering. Although it was well known that all the agitators from the rural background were busy in harvesting and it was most opportune time to remove the blockage of the road, the State of Punjab and the Union Territory, Chandigarh, were dragging their feet for the reasons best known to them.
The Court further deferred the proceedings for 18-04-2024 hoping that the State of Punjab and the Union Territory, Chandigarh, would wake up from their slumber and keep in mind the observations laid down in State of H.P. v. Umed Ram Sharma, (1986) 2 SCC 68 and Amit Sahni v. Commr. of Police, (2020) 10 SCC 439.
[Arrive Safe Society v. State of Punjab, 2024 SCC OnLine P&H 2267, Order dated 09-04-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: Ravi Kamal Gupta, Advocate;
For the Respondents: Gurminder Singh, Advocate General, Punjab, assisted by Gagneshwar Walia, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab; Amit Jhanji, Senior Standing Counsel, UT Chandigarh, with Abhnav Sood, Advocate and Anand Gupta, Advocate; Satya Pal Jain, Addl. Solicitor General of India, with Saigeeta Srivastava, Advocate;
For the Protestors: G.P.S. Bal, Advocate, and G.S. Dhaliwal, Advocate.
