“You Made A Law Without Enough Consultation”: Supreme Court suspends enforcement of three farm laws until further order.

Dated: January 13, 2021

                                                                                                                                                           - By Megha Bhatia

“We are going to suspend the implementation of the three farm laws until further orders. We will also constitute a Committee,” while hearing a batch of petitions questioning the Farm Laws/demanding the expulsion of protesting farmers from the boundaries of Delhi, the Supreme Court said on January 12, 2021.

The CJI-led bench said it would suspend the enforcement of the contested farm laws – Farmers’ Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) Act, 2020, Farmers’ (Empowerment an Protection) Agreement of Price Assurance and Farm Services Act, 2020 and Essential Commodities(Amendment) Act, 2020, until further orders.

Here are some of the key observations made by the CJI:

“We are extremely disappointed at the way government is handling all this (farmers protests). We don’t know what consultative process you followed before the laws. Many states are up in rebellion.”

“We are sorry to say that you, as the Union of India, are not able to solve the problem. You have made a law without enough consultation resulting in a strike. So you have to resolve the strike.”

“Either you put on hold the laws, or court will stay. You tell us if you will put on hold the implementation of the laws. Otherwise we will do it. What is the problem in keeping it in abeyance?” When the Attorney General urged that the Court should not be passing any order today in ‘hurry’, the CJI shot back: “We have given you a very long rope. Don’t lecture us on patience. We will decide when to pass the order. We might pass in part today and in part tomorrow.”

Formation of Independent Committee 

The names of agricultural economist Ashok Gulati, Bhupinder Singh Mann, President of the BKU and All India Coordination Committee, Pramod Kumar Joshi (Director of International Food Policy for South Asia), Anil Ghanwat (Shethkari Sangathan) were also listed by the CJI SA Bobde as members of the Committee, which is expected to resolve the deadlock between government and protesting farmers.

“We believe in the Committee and we are going to constitute it. This Committee will be the part of judicial proceedings”,the Apex Court said.

Persons who are sincerely interested in addressing the issue must go before the Committee

The Court, which also includes Justices AS Bopanna and V. Ramasubramanian, said that a claim that farmers are reluctant to go to the Committee will not be heard.

“We are looking to solve the problem. If you want to agitate indefinitely, you can. Every person who is genuinely interested in solving the problem is expected to go before the Committee. The Committee will not punish you or pass any orders. It will submit a report to us. We are going to take the opinion of the organizations. We are forming the Committee so that we have a clearer picture”, the CJI said. 

The development takes place in the background of the protesting farmers’ unions expressing their reluctance to take part in the negotiation talks before the top court's proposed committee. 

Late on January 12, 2020 night, the ‘Samyuktha Kisan Morcha’ released a statement saying that while all organisations welcome the SC’s suggestions to ensure the enforcement of farm laws, they are not willing to participate collectively and individually in any proceedings before a committee that may be appointed by the SC.

In their joint statement, the farmers’ unions claimed that the talks before the committee would be fruitless in view of the attitude taken by the Centre before the Court on January 12, 2020 that the three farm laws would not be repealed.

“Looking to the attitude and approach of the Government which made it clear before the court today repeatedly that they will not agree to the discussion for repeal before the committee”, they said. 

During talks, farmers’ lands will be secured 

The CJI told the Court that the enforcement of the legislation would remain in place and that it would protect the property of farmers, but the same would be done if farmers decided to participate before the Independent Committee.

We will pass an interim order saying the no farmers land can be sold for contract farming...We are concerned about only the validity of the laws and also about protecting the life and property of citizens affected by protests. We are trying to solve the problem in accordance with the powers we have. We have the power to suspend the legislation. But the suspension of legislation must not be for an empty purpose. We will form a Committee which will submit a report to us,”the CJI added.

In response to these concerns, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta pointed out that Section 8 of the Farmers’ Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) Act specifies that no agricultural agreement shall be concluded for the purpose of transfer, selling, mortgage, etc. during the time of contract farming. No structure can be straight. Furthermore, Section 15 of the Act provides that no action against agricultural land for the recovery of any amount is to be initiated. Farm land is immune from attachment entirely. 

Senior Advocate Harish Salve, appearing for the Government, also argued that legislation does not allow for the sale of land to farmers and that the apprehension in this regard is unfounded.

The CJI also said that the Court will not pass any order to stop the protests. When Senior Advocate Harish Salve submitted that the Court should also stop the protests if it was staying the implementation of the farm laws, the CJI said: “Court will not pass an order that citizens should not protest”.

“We are not against protests. Don’t understand that the Court is stifling protests”, the CJI said. The CJI also suggested that the bench would not amend its order of 17 December, which held that farmers should continue their protests in a peaceful manner without hindrance.

“Two things are causing concern - 1) Whether MSPs will be dismantled. 2)Whether lands will be sold. The AG and SG can assure that these concerns a unfounded. MSPs will not be dismantled and no lands will be sold off,” Salve said. 

Furthermore, the Top Court refused the farmers’ suggestion that the Prime Minister himself meet them in order to hold talks. 

“We cannot ask the Prime Minister to go. He is not a party here,” the CJI said. I was also told that the Minister of Agriculture had already held talks with the farmers, but all was in vain.

The Apex Court announced that the enforcement of the laws would remain and that it would form an independent committee to resolve the deadlock between farmers and the Centre.

The Chief Justice of India made sharp critical comments at the hearing on Monday against the Central Government for passing the laws “without enough consultation” and for failing to address the farmers’ protests that had been going on near the Delhi border since 26 November.

The CJI also made it clear that as long as they proceed in a peaceful way, the court would not go in any direction to stop the demonstrations. In the midst of the harsh winter and the COVID19 pandemic, the CJI further expressed concern about the presence of a large number of old people and women among the demonstrators and urged the lawyers representing the unions to convince them to return to their villages.

The CJI also withdrew the Centre for not having replied to the Court’s suggestion to put on hold the introduction of laws to encourage talks before Christmas vacations.

“You tell us if you will put on hold the implementation of the laws. Otherwise we will do it. What is the problem in keeping it in abeyance?”, the CJI asked the Attorney General. 

The Attorney General challenged the interference of the Court by arguing that a statute can not be preserved. The CJI responded that various items were to remain executive acts under the law and to remain the law.

Later in the day, the Centre filed an affidavit alleging that the farmers in the nation were satisfied with the laws except for some groups of Punjab protesters. It also claimed that the laws were the result of over two decades of deliberations by agricultural market reform experts.

The Centre also stated that some non-farmer elements spread a deliberate misunderstanding about the laws that create misgivings in the minds of farmers. It also claimed that farmers' unions came for talks with a ‘pre-occupied mind’ only with ‘Yes’ or ‘No choices for repealing laws without taking any middle route into account.


Top Stories