New Delhi

The Supreme Court on Monday issued notice to the 43 farmers' organisations in an application seeking to make them parties before the top Court in a PIL against the blockade of roads between Delhi to Noida due to farmers protests against the three agriculture laws.

A Bench headed by Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul sought response from the farmers' bodies holding protests at Delhi borders against the three farm laws. The order of the top court come on an application filed by the Haryana government where it has impleaded various farmers' union as parties in the plea filed by a woman resident of Noida to remove the road blockade which is causing inconvenience to people. Earlier, the Bench had allowed the government to file the impleadment application.

Read More: UP sets up judicial probe into Lakhimpur violence

The matter is now to be heard on October 20.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appearing for the government told the Bench that a high-level three-member committee was formed where the farmers were invited to speak as people should not suffer, but they refused to join saying they are not a party in the case before the top court.

On the last hearing, the top court took a grim view of the continued blockade of highways in Delhi-NCR due to farmers protests against the three agriculture laws and said that this can not be a perpetual problem.

The Bench had said that redressal of the issue can be through the judicial forum, agitation or parliamentary debates and asked how can highways be blocked.

The Bench was hearing a plea of a woman resident of Noida seeking direction to ensure that the road between Noida to Delhi is kept clear so that the passage is not affected.

Earlier, the Haryana government had told the apex court through an affidavit that sincere efforts are being made to remove the blockades from interstate roads and national highways and to resume the free flow of traffic.

It has been said that the general public continued to face great hardship due to the blockades of roads and its persuading the farmers and farmers' organisations to cooperate.

"Sincere efforts are being made to remove the blockades from interstate roads and national highways and to resume the free flow of traffic on these roads for the convenience of the general public by way of persuading the farmers and farmers' organisations to cooperate. Regular deliberations are being held by local administration from time to time to convince them to remove the blockades as the general public is facing great hardship due to such blockades," the affidavit stated.

The Haryana government has said that although the farmers did not meet the State Level Committee, constituted to resolve the issue of farmers' protest on public spaces, the State government would continue to persuade protesting farmers to remove blockages on state and national highways.

Before that, the Bench had asked Centre and State governments to find a solution to the blockade of roads due to the farmers' ongoing protest against the three agriculture laws.

It had said that the protestors have a right to protest at a designated space but can't block the outflow and inflow of traffic.

The Uttar Pradesh government had earlier also filed its affidavit and said that it's making all efforts to make farmers understand that their act of blocking roads is causing grave inconvenience to travellers.

The top court had made it clear that it is not concerned about a larger issue on the farm laws which can be decided judicially, politically or administratively but limited to clearing of roads blocked by farmers.

Noida resident Monicca Agarwaal filed the plea in the apex court and alleged that her travel to Delhi is taking two hours instead of the normal 20 minutes.

She contended that despite the various directions passed by the apex court to keep the to and fro passage clear (the road), the same had still not happened.

Being a single parent who has some medical issues, Agarwaal said that it has become a nightmare to travel to Delhi. The plea said she stayed and worked in Noida, but since she had a marketing job she had to travel frequently to Delhi.