FACTS
Applications for involvement and intervention were accepted. The Farmers’ Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) Act of 2020, the Essential Commodities (Amendment) Act of 2020, and the Farmers (Empowerment and Protection) Agreement on Price Assurance and Farm Services Act of 2020 are the three farm laws that are the subject of three different petition categories. 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. The Attorney General, who is knowledgeable, supports this claim. A few farmer organisations have banded together to hire solicitors for the cause; among them are solicitors Shri Dushyant Dave, Colin Gonsalves, H.S. Phoolka, and Shri Prashant Bhushan. Reports from Shri K.K. Venugopal suggested that there was a possibility that farmers would stage a tractor rally to obstruct the Republic Day parade on January 26, 2021. However, Shri Dushyant Dave refuted these reports, stating that nearly every Punjabi family had a member in the army and that they would not interfere with the festivities. There has been little progress in the negotiations between the Indian government and farmer bodies, despite several rounds of talks. 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. The knowledgeable attorney representing Kisan Maha Panchayat, Mr. Ajay Choudhary, stated that the Rajasthani farmers who are demonstrating at the state boundary are prepared to come before the Committee and voice their complaints. The applicant in IA No. 136682/2020 in WP[C] No. 1118/2020 is in favour of Bhartiya Kisan Sangh. 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 application of the three agriculture laws The Farmers’ Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) Act of 2020, the Essential Commodities (Amendment) Act of 2020, and the Farmers (Empowerment and Protection) Agreement on Price Assurance and Farm Services Act of 2020 shall all stay in force until further orders.
(ii) Consequently, until further orders, the Minimum Support Price System that was in place before to the Farm Laws’ implementation shall be upheld. Furthermore, the land holdings of farmers will be safeguarded, meaning that no farmer will be evicted or devoid of his title in the event that the Farm Laws are invoked.
(iii) In order to hear farmers’ complaints about farm laws and government policies, a committee was formed. Members include Dr. Parmod Kumar Joshi, Director for South Asia at the International Food Organisation; Shri Bhupinder Singh Mann, National President of the Bhartiya Kisan Union and All India Kisan Coordination Committee Policy Research Institute; (3) Ashok Gulati, Agricultural Economist and Former Chairman of the Commission for Agricultural Costs and Prices; and (4) Shri Anil Ghanwat, President, Shetkari Sanghatana. 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
- 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 knowledgeable senior attorney representing a group of Tamil Nadu farmers. He promised to bring his client to the Committee. In a similar vein, Bhartiya Kisan Union [BHANU] representative Mr. A.P. Singh, a respected lawyer, stated that the Union’s representatives will take part in the talks. He even went so far as to warn women, children, and the elderly against attending the protest location. The knowledgeable attorney representing Kisan Maha Panchayat, Mr. Ajay Choudhary, stated that the Rajasthani farmers who are demonstrating at the state’s border are prepared to address the Committee and voice their complaints.[1]
Rationale
A particular type of petition contested the farm laws’ constitutionality. This category of petitions includes a petition under Article 32 contesting the legality of the Constitution (Third Amendment) Act, 1954, which allowed the Central Government to legislate on subjects that were previously in the State List by substituting Entry 33 in List III (concurrent list) of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. 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.[2]
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
[1] https://indiankanoon.org/doc/196962121/
[2] https://indiankanoon.org/doc/196962121/