<p>Days before the Supreme Court's scheduled hearing on the farmers' issue on January 11, a petitioner has asked the apex court to remove farmers from the Delhi borders immediately, claiming that the protests and the resulting road blockades were causing unnecessary hardship to commuters.</p>.<p>Rishabh Sharma, who filed a PIL, said in an affidavit that the ongoing protest since November 26 at Delhi borders was in violation of the top court's verdict in the Shaheen Bagh case. </p>.<p>In its October 7 judgment dealing with a plea on anti-CAA protests, the court had said public spaces cannot be occupied indefinitely and demonstrations expressing dissent have to be staged at designated places only.</p>.<p>Sharma said SC on December 17, 2020, allowed protests subject to public order but did not consider inconvenience caused to commuters. He said the protests were in violation of their right of free movement and right to earn a livelihood.</p>.<p><strong><a href="https://www.deccanherald.com/national/north-and-central/wheelchair-bound-punjab-farmer-defies-odds-joins-protest-at-singhu-border-937163.html">Read | Wheelchair-bound Punjab farmer defies odds, joins protest at Singhu border</a></strong></p>.<p>Sharma also warned in his PIL that the gatherings might lead to a surge in Covid-19 cases.</p>.<p>"If the farmers' protest as such is allowed to continue by allowing them to block the public road, it will not only contradict this court's own judgment in Shaheen Bagh matter but also it will cause hardship and inconvenience to the common citizen as an increase in cost material will automatically shoot up the prices of finished goods," he said.</p>.<p>Sharma also cited the news reports which claimed the farmers' protest was causing a daily loss of Rs 3500 crore.</p>.<p>In his plea, he asked the court to direct authorities to open roads at Delhi's borders, shift the protesters to an allotted place and provide guidelines on social distancing and use of masks at the protest site. He has impleaded 42 farmers' unions as parties as per the court's orders of December 16 and 17.</p>
<p>Days before the Supreme Court's scheduled hearing on the farmers' issue on January 11, a petitioner has asked the apex court to remove farmers from the Delhi borders immediately, claiming that the protests and the resulting road blockades were causing unnecessary hardship to commuters.</p>.<p>Rishabh Sharma, who filed a PIL, said in an affidavit that the ongoing protest since November 26 at Delhi borders was in violation of the top court's verdict in the Shaheen Bagh case. </p>.<p>In its October 7 judgment dealing with a plea on anti-CAA protests, the court had said public spaces cannot be occupied indefinitely and demonstrations expressing dissent have to be staged at designated places only.</p>.<p>Sharma said SC on December 17, 2020, allowed protests subject to public order but did not consider inconvenience caused to commuters. He said the protests were in violation of their right of free movement and right to earn a livelihood.</p>.<p><strong><a href="https://www.deccanherald.com/national/north-and-central/wheelchair-bound-punjab-farmer-defies-odds-joins-protest-at-singhu-border-937163.html">Read | Wheelchair-bound Punjab farmer defies odds, joins protest at Singhu border</a></strong></p>.<p>Sharma also warned in his PIL that the gatherings might lead to a surge in Covid-19 cases.</p>.<p>"If the farmers' protest as such is allowed to continue by allowing them to block the public road, it will not only contradict this court's own judgment in Shaheen Bagh matter but also it will cause hardship and inconvenience to the common citizen as an increase in cost material will automatically shoot up the prices of finished goods," he said.</p>.<p>Sharma also cited the news reports which claimed the farmers' protest was causing a daily loss of Rs 3500 crore.</p>.<p>In his plea, he asked the court to direct authorities to open roads at Delhi's borders, shift the protesters to an allotted place and provide guidelines on social distancing and use of masks at the protest site. He has impleaded 42 farmers' unions as parties as per the court's orders of December 16 and 17.</p>
