Isabella Mariam

The Supreme Court of India, on January 2, 2025, raised serious questions about the Union Government’s lack of assurances to farmers demanding systemic agricultural reforms and legal guarantees for Minimum Support Price (MSP). Concurrently, the Court criticized the Punjab Government for its failure to hospitalize farmer leader Jagjit Singh Dallewal, who has been on a hunger strike for 37 days, despite medical advice indicating his deteriorating health condition.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan, hearing the matter, also issued a notice to the Union Government in response to a petition filed by Advocate Guninder Kaur Gill. Representing Dallewal, Advocate Gill sought directions compelling the Union Government to honor its earlier proposals concerning MSP guarantees and other agrarian reforms. The Court’s observations highlighted the inaction of both the Union and Punjab Governments, as they faced scrutiny over their failure to address the hunger strike and the ongoing farmer protests along Punjab-Haryana border points since February 2024.

Expressing discontent with the Centre's reluctance to engage with the farmers, the bench asked Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, “Why can’t your client make a statement that you would address their genuine grievances?” The Solicitor General, representing the Union and Haryana Governments, informed the Court about the existence of committees—one constituted by the Supreme Court and another by the Centre—to address various issues. However, the bench observed, “But why can’t the central government also make a statement? This could defuse the situation.”

The Court noted the interconnected nature of the farmer leader’s hunger strike and the broader agrarian concerns. Justice Kant remarked, “It is linked. You should come forward and make a statement.” The bench urged the Centre to demonstrate a willingness to engage in dialogue, linking the resolution of Dallewal’s fast to its broader commitment to addressing the farmers’ demands.

The Punjab Government faced sharper criticism for its handling of Dallewal’s hospitalization. The bench, addressing Punjab Advocate General Gurminder Singh, expressed concern over the State’s perceived lack of initiative, “What’s happening? There is a deliberate attempt to create an impression that this Court is trying to undermine Dallewal’s protest or break his fast. Why is your administration giving this impression? Our primary concern is only to save his life, and his health can be managed better in a hospital.”

The bench also questioned the State’s approach to conciliation, stating, “Your attitude shows no interest in conciliation. Have your administration and ministers even approached him (Dallewal) to inform him about the committee constituted by this Court? Why haven’t they told him the committee will hear his concerns?” While the Advocate General sought additional time, citing ongoing efforts to persuade Dallewal to accept medical aid, the bench remained unconvinced. The Court remarked, “Once his health is taken care of, the committee can address the other issues. But there are individuals making irresponsible statements so that no resolution occurs. Such behavior raises doubts about their bona fides.”

The Supreme Court expressed its confidence in the committee it had constituted to mediate the farmers' concerns, emphasizing its neutrality and expertise. The bench observed, “We comprised a committee chaired by a former judge who has roots in both the states involved and the farming sector. Why aren’t the farmers and their representatives using this platform?”

To ensure compliance with its directives, the Court ordered the Punjab Chief Secretary and the Director General of Police (DGP) to file affidavits by January 6, 2025, detailing their actions in line with the Court’s orders. The bench warned of strict consequences for further delays, signaling its determination to ensure accountability.

The Court also engaged extensively with Advocate Gill, who argued that the Centre’s earlier assurances on MSP created a promissory estoppel, obligating it to act. Gill stated, “There was a commitment and promise made by the Centre, and they cannot back out now.” The bench, however, cautioned against turning the proceedings into a confrontational platform, “Please don’t think of confrontation. You don’t have to play to the gallery. Focus on your plea. We are seeking a response from the Centre.” The Court directed the Union Government to respond to the petition.

The protests stem from an appeal filed by the Haryana Government against a Punjab and Haryana High Court order directing the removal of blockades at the Shambhu border, where farmers had gathered to march toward Delhi to press their demands. Since February 2024, farmers under the banners of Samyukta Kisan Morcha (Non-Political) and Kisan Mazdoor Morcha have been camping at border points like Shambhu and Khanauri after their march was halted by security forces.

Despite the formation of an SC-appointed committee in September 2024 to mediate the issues, the deadlock continues. The committee’s report, presented to the Court, highlighted critical agrarian challenges such as mounting debts and unsustainable farming practices, urging swift government intervention. However, the Court has yet to consider these recommendations fully.

The Court has issued several directives in the past concerning Dallewal’s health. On December 20, 2024, the Court directed the Punjab Government to urgently hospitalize Dallewal, noting his precarious health and unwavering resolve to continue his hunger strike until the farmers' issues were addressed. The bench warned that any harm to Dallewal would be attributable solely to the State’s inaction. The court described it not just a 'failure of law and order machinery', but amounts to “abetment to suicide” .

Dallewal’s hunger strike, initiated on November 26, 2024, aims to draw attention to farmers’ demands for MSP guarantees, debt relief, and systemic agricultural reforms. Despite repeated judicial interventions, the prolonged strike and protests have caused disruptions in Punjab and Haryana, with no resolution in sight.

Case Title: Labh Singh v. K.A.P. Sinha & Anr.

Case Number:  SLP(C) Nos. 6950-6953/2024 & CONMT.PET.(C) Nos. 930-933/2024

Bench: Justice Surya Kant and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan

[View/Download order]