Rakesh Vaishnav vs Union Of India - 2020 Supreme(SC) 842

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2020 Supreme(SC) 842

S. A. BOBDE, A. S. BOPANNA, V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN
Rakesh Vaishnav – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India – Respondent

Advocates appeared:
Mr. K.Parameshwar, Advocate, Mr. M.V. Mukunda, Advocate, Mr. Sukumar Patthjoshi, Sr. Advocate, Mr. k.K.L. Gautam, Advocate, Mr. Manoj Sharma, Advocate, Mr. A.K. Suman, Advocate, Mr. Sandeep Kumar Singh, Advocate, Mr. Vijendra Kasana, Advocate, Mr. Aditya Agarwal, Advocate, Mr. Sanjeev Malhotra, Advocate, Mr. Vivek K. Tankha,Sr. Advocate, Mr. Varun Tankha, Advocate, Mr. Sumeer Sodhi, Advocate, Mr. Prashant Sivarajan, Advocate, Mr. Ujjawal Anand Sharma, Advocate, Ms. Jhanvi Dubey, Advocate, Ms. Suditi Batra, Advocate, Mr. Hussain Ali, Advocate, Mr. P.Wilson, Sr. Advocate, Mr. D.kumanan, Advocate, Mr. Richardson Wilson, Advocate, Mr. Om Prakash Ajitsinghh Parikhar,Advocate, Mr. Dushyant Tiwari, Advocate, MR. Yudhvir Dalal, Advocate, Mr. Harisha S.R., Advocate, Petitioner-in-Person Mr. Pradeep Kumar Yadav, Advocate, Mr. Harish N. Salve,Sr. Advocate, Mr. Deepak Goel,Advocate, Mr. Kamal Kumar Pandey, Advocate, Mr. Vipin Kumar, Advocate, Ms. Madhuri Gupta, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. K.K. Venugopal, AG Mr. Tushar Mehta, SG Mr. K.M. Nataraj, ASG Ms. Suhasini Sen, Advocate, Mr. Kanu Agarwal, Advocate, Ms. Chinmayee Chandra, Advocate, Mr. Rajat Nair, Advocate, Ms. Swati Ghildiyal, Advocate, Mr. B.V. Balramdas, Advocate, Mr. Raj Bahadur Yadav, Advocate, Mr. Tushar Mehta, SG Mr. Anil Grover, Sr. AAG Ms. Noopur Singhal, Advocate, Mr. Rahul Khurana, Advocate, Mr. Satish Kumar, Advocate, Mr. Sanjay Kumar visen,Advocate, for the Respondent; Mr. P. Chidambaram,Sr. Advocate, Mr. Atul Nanda, AG Ms. Uttara Babbar, Advocate, Mr. Rahul Mehra, Advocate Mr. Chirag M. Shroff, Advocate Ms. Abhilasha Bharti, Advocate Mr. Ajay Bansal, Advocate, Mr. Gaurav Yadava, Advocate, for the State of Punjab; Ms. Garima Prashad, Advocate, for the U.P.; Mr. A.P. Singh, Advocate, Mr. V.P. Singh, Advocate, Mr. Sharwan Kumar Goyal, Advocate, Mr. Sadashiv, Advocate, for the Intervener (BKU-Bhanu)

ORDER

W.P.(C) Nos.1404/2020, 1406/2020, 1421/2020 and 1441/2020

1. While issuing notice to the respondents on 16.12.2020, the petitioners were allowed to serve copies of these petitions upon the impleaded farmers' Associations and these matters were directed to be posted today to enable the Court to hear the farmers who are agitating at the Borders of National Capital Region of Delhi. However, none of the impleaded respondents-farmers' assocations have appeared today though the petitioners claim to have informed them over their respective mobile/whatsapp numbers. However, the Bharatiya Kisan Union (Bhanu Group) appeared through Mr. A.P. Singh, leanred counsel.

2. The preliminary issue before this Court is the claim of the citizens who are the residents of NCT of Delhi/Haryana, having a population of more than two million people, that the manner in which the protest is being carried on is seriously inhibiting the supply of essential goods to the city because of restrictions on the free movement of goods vehicles. According to the petitioners, this will result in a sharp increase in the prices of goods which would be difficult for people to bear in these times of Pandemic.

3. Mr. P.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2020 Supreme(SC) 842

S. A. BOBDE, A. S. BOPANNA, V. RAMASUBRAMANIANRakesh Vaishnav – AppellantVersusUnion Of India – Respondent

S. A. BOBDE, A. S. BOPANNA, V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN
Rakesh Vaishnav – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India – Respondent