FACTS
Application for intervention and impleadment were allowed. Three categories of petition around the three farm laws, them being Farmers’ Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) Act, 2020, Essential Commodities (Amendment) Act, 2020, Farmers (Empowerment and Protection) Agreement on Price Assurance and Farm Services Act, 2020. One category of the petition challenged the constitutional validity of the farm laws. There is another petition saying that the farm laws are valid and beneficial for the farmers. The third kind of petition being filed by the people of the national capital territory of delhi as the protests conducted by the farmers is causing problems for them as the roads are being blocked and it infringes on the fundamental right to move freely around the country and not being able to conduct business according to their right. Several, round of negotiations had taken place between the farmers body and the government of India but no solution seems to be in sight. Some of the issues of the farmers protest being that there are substantial health risks from cold and COVID-19 for elderly people, women, and children at the site, and that a few deaths have occurred—though not from violence, but rather from disease or by taking one’s own life. Regardless of all the issues and actions taken by the government the farmers have continued the movement and agitation peacefully but it was also to be noted that some people who are not farmers have joined the protests to show their support and solidarity for the cause. It was also said that possibility of people causing violence cannot entirely be ruled out. Even though, a particular allegation is made in an intervention application filed by an Indian Kisan Union, stating that the agitation is being funded by an organisation called “Sikhs for Justice,” which is prohibited for supporting the anti-India secessionist movement. This assertion is backed up by the knowledgeable Attorney General. Collectively a few farmer bodies have decided to hire lawyers for the cause, comprising of lawyers like Shri Dushyant Dave, Shri Colin Gonsalves, Shri H.S. Phoolka and Shri Prashant Bhushan. Shri K.K. Venugopal submitted reports that there might be chances that the farmers may take out a tractor rally to disrupt the Republic Day parade on 26 January 2021 but it was quashed by Shri Dushyant Dave saying that almost one member from every family of Punjab was present in the army and they would not disrupt the republic day celebrations. Even after multiple rounds of negotiations between the government of India and the farmers bodies has yielded no result so far. Therefore, the government was of the opinion that establishing a committee comprising of agricultural specialists to facilitate negotiations between farmer bodies and the Indian government could foster a friendly environment and boost farmers’ trust and confidence. Additionally, they believe that the farmers’ sore feelings may be soothed and that they would be more inclined to negotiate in good faith and confidence if all three agricultural laws were to be put on hold for the time being. When we presented the aforementioned ideas, the knowledgeable Attorney General angrily resisted granting any temporary stay of the farm laws’ execution, even though he agreed to form a committee. bringing to our notice the legislation established by this Court in (1)
(1) Health For Millions v. UOI & Ors.; (2) Bhavesh D. Parish & Ors. vs. UOI & Anr.2. (3) Hirendra Pal Singh & Ors. vs. State of UP & Ors.3; (4) Amalendu Das & Ors. vs. Siliguri Municipality & Ors.4. The learned Attorney General argued that the 2005 (5) SCC 471 2014 (14) SCC 496 2011 (5) SCC 305 1984 (2) SCC 436 statutes should not be put on hold by the Court. He maintained that no single provision in the farm laws criticised by the petitioners is harmful to farmers, and that this Court is not able to stay laws passed by Parliament, particularly when there is a presumption that the legislation is constitutional. Although we value the learned Attorney General’s submission, this Court is not entirely without authority to order a stay of any executive action taken in accordance with a statutory legislation. In a recent case, Dr. Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil Vs. The Chief Minister & Anr. (Civil Appeal No. 3123 of 2020), this Court issued an interim Order stating that appointments to government posts and public services for the 2020–21 academic year, as well as admissions to educational institutions, shall be made without regard to the reservation clauses in question legislation. In actuality, a few of the farming organisations opposing the Farm Laws, who are represented before us by solicitors, have consented to appear before the Committee. The suggestion to postpone the implementation of the laws and the Committee’s formation was welcomed by Mr. P Wilson, a learned senior counsel representing a group of Tamil Nadu farmers. Wilson promised that his client will appear before the Committee. Likewise, Bhartiya Kisan Union [BHANU] representative Mr. A.P. Singh, a trained lawyer, stated that the Union’s delegates will take part in the talks. He even went so far as to threaten to keep women, children, and the elderly away from the protest location. Mr. Ajay Choudhary, learned counsel for Kisan Maha Panchayat, submitted that the farmers from Rajasthan, who are protesting at the border of Rajasthan, are willing to appear before the Committee and air their grievances. In support of Bhartiya Kisan Sangh, the applicant in IA No. 136682/2020 in WP[C] No. 1118/2020, Mr. V. Chitambaresh, a learned senior counsel, stated that the Union he represents is not harmed by the Farm Laws. Mr. Sridhar Potaraju, a knowledgeable attorney representing ,The Consortium of Indian Farmers Association (CIFA) argues that its client represents fifteen farmers’ unions in fifteen states and that if the Farm Laws are put on hold, it will have a detrimental impact on these unions. This is because the farmers that he represents grow fruits and vegetables, and if nothing is done at this point, roughly 21 million tonnes of fruits and vegetables will decay. Regarding the concern that MSPs [Minimum Support Prices] may be eliminated, it is argued throughout the Bar that they might not be removed. The knowledgeable Solicitor General also stated that the Farm Laws include built-in safeguards to protect the land owned by farmers and that every farmer will have their land protected. We have heard several points of view, thus we feel it is appropriate to pass the following interim order. We hope and expect that both parties will take this in the proper spirit and work to find a just and fair solution to the issues at hand:
(i) The three agriculture laws’ implementation The following laws will remain in effect until further orders: (1) Farmers’ Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) Act, 2020; (2) Essential Commodities (Amendment) Act, 2020; and (3) Farmers (Empowerment and Protection) Agreement on Price Assurance and Farm Services Act, 2020.
(ii) As a consequence, the Minimum Support Price System in existence before the
enactment of the Farm Laws shall be maintained until further orders. In addition, the
farmers’ land holdings shall be protected, i.e., no farmer shall be dispossessed or
deprived of his title as a result of any action taken under the Farm Laws.
(iii) A Committee made up of Dr. Parmod Kumar Joshi, Director for South Asia at the International Food Organisation, and Shri Bhupinder Singh Mann, National President of the Bhartiya Kisan Union and All India Kisan Coordination Committee Policy Research Institute; (3) Shri Ashok Gulati, Agricultural Economist and Former Chairman of the Commission for Agricultural Costs and Prices; and (4) Shri Anil Ghanwat, President, Shetkari Sanghatana, is constituted for the purpose of listening to the grievances of the farmers relating to the farm laws and the views of the Government and to make recommendations. The Government of Delhi shall give this Committee a venue to meet and secretarial support. Even though we might not put an end to a nonviolent demonstration, we believe that this unprecedented order to halt the application of the farm rules will be seen as a success for the protest’s goals, at least for the time being, and will motivate farmer organisations to persuade their members to return to their means of subsistence, both to safeguard their own health and life as well as the lives and belongings of others.
Issues Raised
- Constitutional Validity: Petitioners claimed that as agriculture is essentially a state issue under the Indian Constitution, the central government lacked the power to enact laws pertaining to it.
- Federalism: The Constitution’s guiding principles of federalism and the violation of state rights have drawn criticism.
- Farmers’ Welfare: Petitioners argued that the regulations will undermine the Minimum Support Price (MSP) system, hurt farmers’ financial interests, and give preference to big businesses.
Contention
- As a matter of fact, some of the farmers’ bodies who are opposing the Farm Laws and who are represented before us through counsel, have agreed to go before the Committee. Mr. P Wilson, learned senior counsel representing one section of farmers from Tamil Nadu welcomed the proposal to stay the impelementation of the Laws and the constitution of the Committee and stated that his client would go before the Committee. Similarly, Mr. A.P. Singh, learned counsel appearing for Bhartiya Kisan Union [BHANU] also submitted that the representatives of the Union will participate in the negotiations. He even went to the extent of saying that elders, women and children will be dissuaded from being there at the site of protest. Mr. Ajay Choudhary, learned counsel for Kisan Maha Panchayat, submitted that the farmers from Rajasthan, who are protesting at the border of Rajasthan, are willing to appear before the Committee and air their grievances.
Rationale
One category of petitions challenged the constitutional validity of the farm laws. Included within this category of petitions, is a petition under Article 32 challenging the validity of the Constitution (Third Amendment) Act, 1954, by which Entry 33 was substituted in List III (concurrent list) in the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution, enabling the Central Government also to legislate on a subject which was otherwise in the State List. Though we appreciate the aforesaid submission of the learned Attorney General, this Court cannot be said to be completely powerless to grant stay of any executive action under a statutory enactment. Even very recently this Court passed an interim Order in Dr. Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil Vs. The Chief Minister & Anr. (Civil Appeal No.3123 of 2020) directing that admissions to educational institutions for the Academic Year 2020-21 and appointments to public services and posts under the Government shall be made without reference to the reservation provided under the impugned legislation.
Defects of Law
- Procedural Defects:
Stakeholder Engagement: Farmers’ unions, state administrations, and agricultural specialists were among the important parties with whom the laws should have been more thoroughly consulted before being introduced and passed.
Parliamentary Debate: The laws were enacted quickly in Parliament, with little time for discussion or debate. This was particularly true in the upper chamber, the Rajya Sabha, where several MPs felt that the voice vote method was undemocratic.
- Political and Social Unrest:
Widespread Opposition: The rules sparked large-scale demonstrations, especially in regions like Punjab and Haryana, which brought to light farmers’ long-standing suspicion and discontent with the government’s agricultural policy.
Social Stability: Prolonged demonstrations and the government’s first reluctance to lift the regulations caused social unrest that severely disrupted millions of people’s lives and caused serious political and economic upheaval.
Inference
Overall, in this case we could see how the farmers carried out the protests peacefully regardless of all the external factors and how the government of India considered having a talk and planned to reach an agreement rather than quashing their demands. Even though the movement is peaceful it is still causing both parties damage as the farmers are losing people because of disease and suicide and the government is facing issue because of road blockade and the fear of the protest going violent. The farmers also decided to take a legal route and file complaints in the supreme court and fight a legal battle as well. We can see the government also forming a committee to understand the concerns of the farmers better and help in the implementation of the new farm laws. If everything goes peacefully then we can see an agreement being reached and the case reaching its conclusion.
Rounak Ghosh
O.P. Jindal Global University