DT
PT
Subscribe To Print Edition About The Tribune Code Of Ethics Download App Advertise with us Classifieds
search-icon-img
search-icon-img
Advertisement

Blockade of Delhi-Noida roads: SC issues notice to Centre, UP govt on commuter’s plea

  • fb
  • twitter
  • whatsapp
  • whatsapp
Advertisement

New Delhi, March 31 

Advertisement

As the main roads connecting Delhi and Noida remain blocked since the beginning of protests against farm laws in November last year, the Supreme Court has issued notice to the Centre and the UP Government on a petition by a woman who said commuting had become a nightmare.

Acting on a PIL filed by Monicca Agarwaal, a resident of Noida and a single parent with medical issues, a Bench headed by Justice SK Kaul last week asked the Centre and Uttar Pradesh government to explain why the roads connecting Delhi and Noida were not free from blockades.

Advertisement

“We consider it appropriate to issue notice to the Union government and others to ensure that the road area is kept clear so that the passage from one place to another is not affected,” it said, posting the matter for further hearing on April 9.

Agarwaal said though her workplace was in Noida she had to travel to Delhi frequently as she was in a marketing job. Noting that it was taking two hours instead of the standard 20 minutes, she contended that it had become a “nightmare” to commute between Noida and Delhi.

Advertisement

Maintaining that “democracy and dissent go hand in hand”, the Supreme Court had on October 7, 2020, ruled that roads and public spaces can’t be blocked indefinitely and demonstrations expressing dissent have to be in designated places alone.

On February 9, the top court dismissed a petition seeking review of the verdict, saying the right to protest can’t be anytime and everywhere.

Agarwaal pointed out that despite directions issued by the top court to keep the roads blockade-free nothing had happened.

Noting that a judicial view had already been taken and the matter reflected an administrative failure, the Bench agreed to take up the matter after the petitioner said the court should ensure that people’s right to passage wasn’t hindered.

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
tlbr_img1 Classifieds tlbr_img2 Videos tlbr_img3 Premium tlbr_img4 E-Paper tlbr_img5 Shorts