<p>The Supreme Court on Friday said the free flow of traffic on public roads cannot be blocked, causing undue harassment to people.</p>.<p>A bench presided over by Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul made the oral observations while hearing a plea by a woman resident of Noida seeking direction to ensure the roads between Noida to Delhi should be kept clear. </p>.<p>The roads had remained blocked for some months due to farmers' agitation for the repeal of the three farm laws.</p>.<p><strong>Also read: <a href="https://www.deccanherald.com/national/north-and-central/govt-shouldnt-treat-farmers-stir-like-shaheen-bagh-protest-tikait-971746.html" target="_blank">Govt shouldn't treat farmers' stir like Shaheen Bagh protest: Tikait</a></strong></p>.<p>The court noted that the petitioner was facing undue harassment and the authorities concerned should make arrangements so that roads are kept free. </p>.<p>Earlier, the top court had issued notice to the Centre and Delhi Police Commissioner on the plea of Monicca Agarwal who alleged that instead of the normal 20 minutes, she ends up spending two hours for her travel from Noida to Delhi. </p>.<p>"Public streets should not be blocked, and this aspect has been emphasised repeatedly in previous orders of this court,” the top court said.</p>.<p>It also said the petitioner was a single mother and it became harassing for her if roads were blocked.</p>.<p>Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submitted that he was appearing on behalf of the Delhi government and requested the court to implead Uttar Pradesh and Haryana government as parties in the matter. </p>.<p>“We are not concerned, how you resolve this issue, whether politically, administratively or judicially….we have said this before that roads should not be blocked," the bench said</p>.<p>The top court said it is only examining limited aspect in the matter and not looking at other aspects involved in blocking the roads. It fixed the matter for further hearing on April 19. </p>.<p>On January 12 during the farmers' protests, a separate bench, while staying implementation of three farm laws, said, "While we may not stifle a peaceful protest, we think that this order will encourage the farmers' bodies to convince their members to get back to their livelihood, both in order to protect their own lives and health and in order to protect the lives and properties of others."</p>.<p>On October 7, 2020, judgement, the top court, while dealing with Shaheen Bagh sit-in against the Citizenship Amendment Act, had then declared that public roads and spaces can't be occupied indefinitely for protests, causing inconvenience to the people, and the demonstrations must be organised at designated places only.</p>
<p>The Supreme Court on Friday said the free flow of traffic on public roads cannot be blocked, causing undue harassment to people.</p>.<p>A bench presided over by Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul made the oral observations while hearing a plea by a woman resident of Noida seeking direction to ensure the roads between Noida to Delhi should be kept clear. </p>.<p>The roads had remained blocked for some months due to farmers' agitation for the repeal of the three farm laws.</p>.<p><strong>Also read: <a href="https://www.deccanherald.com/national/north-and-central/govt-shouldnt-treat-farmers-stir-like-shaheen-bagh-protest-tikait-971746.html" target="_blank">Govt shouldn't treat farmers' stir like Shaheen Bagh protest: Tikait</a></strong></p>.<p>The court noted that the petitioner was facing undue harassment and the authorities concerned should make arrangements so that roads are kept free. </p>.<p>Earlier, the top court had issued notice to the Centre and Delhi Police Commissioner on the plea of Monicca Agarwal who alleged that instead of the normal 20 minutes, she ends up spending two hours for her travel from Noida to Delhi. </p>.<p>"Public streets should not be blocked, and this aspect has been emphasised repeatedly in previous orders of this court,” the top court said.</p>.<p>It also said the petitioner was a single mother and it became harassing for her if roads were blocked.</p>.<p>Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submitted that he was appearing on behalf of the Delhi government and requested the court to implead Uttar Pradesh and Haryana government as parties in the matter. </p>.<p>“We are not concerned, how you resolve this issue, whether politically, administratively or judicially….we have said this before that roads should not be blocked," the bench said</p>.<p>The top court said it is only examining limited aspect in the matter and not looking at other aspects involved in blocking the roads. It fixed the matter for further hearing on April 19. </p>.<p>On January 12 during the farmers' protests, a separate bench, while staying implementation of three farm laws, said, "While we may not stifle a peaceful protest, we think that this order will encourage the farmers' bodies to convince their members to get back to their livelihood, both in order to protect their own lives and health and in order to protect the lives and properties of others."</p>.<p>On October 7, 2020, judgement, the top court, while dealing with Shaheen Bagh sit-in against the Citizenship Amendment Act, had then declared that public roads and spaces can't be occupied indefinitely for protests, causing inconvenience to the people, and the demonstrations must be organised at designated places only.</p>
