The TLDR: A law student filed a Supreme Court petition asking it to issue an order for the “immediate removal” of the protesting farmers from Delhi’s borders—claiming the situation is exactly the same as Shaheen Bagh. The Court surprised everyone by going in the exact opposite direction. It has instead appointed itself as the negotiator-in-chief and plans to break the deadlock.  So not Shaheen Bagh, then? 

We look at the court ruling and the parallels (or lack thereof) with Shaheen Bagh. Reminder: We’ve done a number of explainers on the protests, including the three laws and the current impasse.

What’s the Supreme Court ruling?

The petition: A Delhi law student Rishabh Sharma petitioned the court asking it to order the forcible and immediate removal of the farmers. His argument: The Court should follow the precedent that it set in its own Shaheen Bagh ruling:

“This Court in the case of Amit Sahni vs. Commissioner of Police [Shaheen Bagh case] has stated that the protest which blocked the public way caused grave inconvenience to commuters and that such protest cannot be allowed, and an indeterminable number of people cannot assemble wherever they choose to protest.”

The ruling: A three-justice bench—headed by Chief Justice Bobde—instead announced that it would form a committee to resolve the current standoff. The details are vague as of now, but Justice Bobde declared: 

“Mr Mehta, what we are planning to do is form a committee to resolve the issue. It will have members from the farmers’ organisations and government of India. There can be representations from others.”

The bench has issued notices to the government and eight farmer unions to appear before it.

What’s the Court’s logic?

In the Court’s view, this case is nothing like Shaheen Bagh, and here’s why. 

The government: In its Shaheen Bagh ruling, the Court slammed the government for not decisively ending the blockade—either via negotiations or by force. In this case, it blamed the government for blocking the roads instead:

“‘It’s by people who are not party to the case. The only one who has blocked the road is you,’ the CJI told Mehta who responded saying, ‘We have not blocked the road.’

When he was asked who had stopped the protesters from crossing over to Delhi, Mehta said ‘Yes, that is the administration.’”

The protesters: More interestingly, this is how the CJI responded to the demand that they be removed by force: 

“‘You want borders to be opened?’ asked the CJI. ‘That’s what the court held in Shaheen Bagh matter, that public roads cannot be blocked’, Parihar replied. The CJI then asked how many protesters were at Shaheen Bagh, to which Parihar said a few lakhs.

 

The CJI then said, ‘How many people had blocked the road there (Shaheen Bagh)?… Will the number of people not determine this? Who will take responsibility? There can be no precedent in a law and order situation.’”

Point to note: At the height of the Shaheen Bagh sit-in, the Court appointed interlocutors to hear the protesters’ concerns and monitor the protests. It never offered to negotiate or weigh in on the citizenship bill itself.

What do the farmers say?

First, let’s start with the government’s response. Union commerce minister of state Som Prakash welcomed the ruling, saying: “Farmers and government will express their views in the committee which is good. Whatever final decision SC takes tomorrow on the issue, we will act accordingly.”

OTOH, the farmers are worried that all this may be an elaborate set up. While the official statement called the ruling “a moral victory,” it is far less enthusiastic about the proposed committee: 

“Committee formation will be fruitful only after the laws are withdrawn and the representatives of all national and regional farmers’ organisations are represented in a decisive manner and should therefore be done only after repeal of the Acts.”

In private, a number of leaders expressed “fear that the petition in the SC had been stage-managed by the government to end the protests.” Yogendra Yadav was more blunt in his tweet:

“The SC can and must decide on the constitutionality of the three farm acts. But it is not for the judiciary to decide on the feasibility and desirability of these laws. That’s between the farmers and their elected leaders. SC-monitored negotiation would be a wrong path… This amounts to resurrecting a proposal made by the government on December 1 which farmers organisations had rejected unanimously.”

So this isn’t like Shaheen Bagh, then?

Well, it depends who you speak to. 

The government: certainly has been hammering home the parallel—insisting that in both cases, innocent people were being misled by sinister anti-national forces, or as one minister put it: “These losers open the entry gate for protests for the innocent people. Then they push them through the exit gate and lock it.”

But, but, but: the ‘Shaheen Bagh’ strategy hasn’t worked quite as well in this case. One reason:

“Shaheen Bagh polarized the national narrative at the behest of the ruling establishment which extracted political capital out of it but this time, several BJP leaders admit, the farmers’ protests make for ‘poor political optics and messaging’ for the party. That’s why, they underline, the government will engage with protesting farmers as against outright vilification as was done with the anti-CAA protests.”

Also this: Others offer more cynical reasons for failure: 

• The Modi government came to power promising a citizenship law that excluded Muslims—and could therefore rely on the support of its political base. This is not the case with the farm laws.
• The polarisation strategy does not work as well in the case of farmers and—for now—the Sikhs. 
• And as the Free Press Journal points out: The government “could dismiss anti-CAA protests as a non-issue because the majority of non-Muslims failed to see it as an important issue of democratic and constitutional right.”

The farmers: Indian Express highlights the very different atmosphere at ground zero: “But if Shaheen Bagh had the grim determination of a last stand, farmers at Singhu are more upbeat.” And the farmers seem more confident as well… for now:

“Shaheen Bhagh had this pressure of being a civics and moral science lesson all at once. The right wing will have to work harder at villainising us. We are aware of the privilege that is. We have people with kirpaans, armed Nihangs walking about. No armed person could have roamed about Shaheen Bagh.”

The bottomline: Whether they like it or not, farmers have no choice but to participate in the committee. If the Court is able to wring a major concession from the government— which shows no such inclination—it may be possible to split the farmers, and end the deadlock. Without such clout, it is hard to see how the Court can just ‘order’ the farmers to go away by declaring their protest as ‘unconstitutional’. The Court may find instead it has put itself in the unenviable position of being ignored. 

Reading list

Indian Express has the most details on the ruling. The Hindu has the farmers’ response. Also in Indian Express: Government sources weigh in on the parallels with Shaheen Bagh. Free Press Journal and Quint offer alternative analyses of the parallel. A good read: NewLines magazine on how Modi used the ‘onion bomb’ to win reelection. Also read: PARI reports on protest langars which are feeding the poor in nearby areas.