Nagpur: The Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court on Thursday came down heavily on Prahar Janshakti Party President and former MLA Bacchu Kadu for his “irresponsible and baseless” remarks accusing the judiciary of being “anti-farmer” after it ordered the clearance of the Nagpur-Wardha road blockade.
Justice Anil Kilor, reacting sharply to Kadu’s comments, said the court had never acted against farmers, their protests, or their rights. “No one, including this court, is against farmers. But no individual has the right to paralyse public life in the name of protest,” Justice Kilor asserted, warning Kadu to restrain himself and understand the judiciary’s constitutional role before making arbitrary allegations.
Gold Rate
07 Oct 2025
Kadu had led a massive blockade of the Nagpur-Wardha highway on October 28 and 29, demanding farm loan waivers. The road remained blocked for nearly 35 hours, severely disrupting traffic and daily life. Patients, women, and children were stranded for hours, while trade and industry incurred losses worth lakhs of rupees. The High Court described the agitation as “unconstitutional,” observing that it violated the fundamental rights of citizens to free movement.
Taking suo motu cognisance, the court directed authorities to restore traffic immediately. The blockade was lifted after the government assured positive consideration of farmers’ demands. However, Kadu later accused the High Court of acting “against farmers,” prompting Thursday’s stern rebuke.
Justice Kilor, who was sitting along with Justice Rajnish Vyas, warned Kadu against maligning the judiciary. “The court does not take sides, it acts in accordance with the law,” the bench said, adding that such statements could invite legal consequences.
The bench also reminded Kadu that he had earlier given a written undertaking not to organise protests that cause inconvenience to the public. “If this undertaking is violated, appropriate legal action will follow,” the court cautioned.
‘Peaceful’ doesn’t mean harmless, rules court
When Kadu’s counsel argued that the protest was “peaceful” since no violence occurred, Justice Kilor dismissed the claim, saying the concept of loss was not limited to physical damage. “Just because you didn’t burn buses doesn’t make it peaceful. Ambulances were stranded, patients suffered, what about their rights?” the bench questioned. “A protest that denies citizens their fundamental rights to movement and safety itself causes harm.”
The bench also questioned Kadu’s commitment to farmers’ welfare, asking how many petitions he had actually filed in court to address farmers’ grievances. No figure was provided in response.
In a strong message, the High Court reiterated that while peaceful protest is a democratic right, blocking public roads and inconveniencing thousands cannot be tolerated. “Agitation cannot come at the cost of citizens’ rights,” Justice Kilor concluded.
Senior Advocates Devendra Chavan and Nitin Rao represented the State, while Smita Singalkar and Hariom Dhage appeared for Kadu.
