IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.954 of 1996(O&M) Date of decision:02.08.2011 The Punjab Border Kissan Welfare Society, its head office of Khem Karan, District Amritsar, through its President. ...Petitioner versus Union of India, through its Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi, and others. ....Respondents II. Civil Writ Petition No.13209 of 2000(O&M) Raghbir Singh son of Teja Singh, resident of Village Muthianwala, Tehsil Patti, District Amritsar. ...Petitioner versus Union of India, through Secretary, Home Department, Government of India, New Delhi, and others. ....Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. J.S. Verma, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Anil Rathee, Advocate, for the Union of India. ---- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No. 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? No. 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? No. ---- K.Kannan, J. (Oral) 1. The relief in the first petition i.e. CWP No.954 of 1996 by a society going in the name of 'The Punjab border Kissan Welfare Society', acting through its President, has brought before Court through the writ Civil Writ Petition No.954 of 1996(O&M) - 2 - petition for prayers, that fencing barbed wire of 40' to 100' width, installed throughout the Indo-Pak Border area of Punjab in the year 1985-86, shall be removed. There is a further prayer that the members of the petitioner's society, who are citizens of India have a right to liberty and equity and towards that end, the persons, who are made to suffer in the border areas, being unable to enjoy the properties effectively, shall have the benefit of their properties acquired by the Government under the Land Acquisition Act of 1894. I find both the prayers the reliefs sought as preposterous that they do not require consideration and liable for summary rejection and, accordingly, dismissed. 2. As far as the relief in CWP No.13209 of 2000, the petitioner's grievance is that the instructions given by the State regarding the issuance of identity cards to farmers at the border villages to go across the fencing wires to work in their fields must be quashed. The requirement of identity cards in border areas on issues of national security and safety cannot be whittled down for allowing the farmers to wander anywhere in the border areas. The identity card is to ensure that constant vigil is enforced and it is possible to verify at all times that the persons, who are seen at the boundary or in its vicinity carry Indian identity and a person across the border with inferior nefarious does not trample upon the Indian border. The identity cards are a measure of protecting Indian citizens and cannot be viewed as constituting any impediment of freedom. The petitioner has also a private grievance that his own prayer for issuance of an identity card has not been favourably considered, since the police was not prepared to give favourable reports Civil Writ Petition No.954 of 1996(O&M) - 3 - by the only fact that he has been spearheading a campaign against the Government's attitude towards the farmers' sufferings in the border areas. If the petitioner is a bona fide farmer holding lands in the border area, and if any request is given by him for being provided with an identity card, the respondent shall duly consider the same. A right to form association is a fundamental freedom enshrined in the Constitution and his own predilection to any particular political ideology or his association or his position as an office bearer of an association shall not be used against him so long as he is not involved in any activity that imperils to the nation's security. If such a request for identity card is given through appropriate application in the manner set through any instruction or rules to the competent authority, the same shall be considered and appropriate decision shall be taken on the petitioner's application. 3. CWP No.954 of 1996 is dismissed and CWP No.13209 of 2000 is disposed of with the above directions. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE 02.08.2011 sanjeev '