Synopsis: The group assaults the detention as a violation of the right to liberty, the right to life and the protection against arrest and detention, seeking a writ of habeas corpus (Articles 19, 21, 22 of the Constitution).
The Haryana Progressive Farmers’ Union’s welfare advocacy group for farmers has moved the Punjab and Haryana High Court to protest the Haryana State authorities’ continued detention of farmers in the wake of farmers’ protests.
On Wednesday, the Bench of Justice Sant Parkash heard the matter and gave the Haryana government time to file a status report on the matter until Thursday, November 26.
Terming the continued detention of farmers as illegal, the petitioner group has approached the High Court through Advocate Pardeep Kumar Rapria.
The group assaults the detention as a violation of the right to liberty, the right to life and the protection against arrest and detention, seeking a writ of habeas corpus (Articles 19, 21, 22 of the Constitution).
The group claims that the farmer leaders were arrested from their homes at midnight without any reason being furnished and any crime being committed. The leaders are regarded as ‘wanted criminals’ and the petitioner dislikes them.
Terminating the detention as an effort to sabotage the Delhi Chalo protests called for by different groups of farmers, the petitioner argues that none of the D.K. Basu Guidelines were followed when the ‘Midnight Arrests’ was carried out.
Pursuant to Section 151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the few arrests about which the petitioners obtained details were carried out. Section 151 allows the police to arrest a person on apprehension of a cognizable offence being committed.
The petitioner raises a question as to what crime the police felt would be committed by the farmers during the Delhi chalo protest march. In any event, no person can be detained for more than 24 hours.
The group asked the High Court for relief on such grounds.
On behalf of the State of Haryana, Additional Advocate General Deepak Sabharwal approved the notice.
Farmers throughout the state have been protesting the controversial farmers’ laws implemented in September this year by the central government.
On October 12, on petitions challenging the Farmers Acts, the Supreme Court issued a notice.
The petitioners before the Supreme Court alleged that Parliament should not have passed these laws because agriculture, a subject within the scope of the State List, on which only state assemblies are allowed to make laws, is specifically prohibited from legislating.
In addition, it is claimed that the laws are seriously harmful to the interests of farmers, who will all be at a loss because the laws are moving towards the “liberalisation” of the agricultural industry, which basically means allowing large companies to enter the arena.
These laws also do not provide for a judicial remedy process for farmers’ disputes, as has been pointed out by some of the pleas before the Apex Court.