The deadlock between the agitating farmers and the Union Government continues and harms the nation in the matters of economy, social order, a sense of mutual trust, India’s image in a greater part of the world and above all the broader peace. The three farm laws, enacted in September after those introduced as Ordinances in July last year have been projected by the government as major reforms in the agriculture sector that will remove the middlemen and allow farmers to sell their produce anywhere in the country.
However, the protesting farmers and those backing them have been expressing their deep apprehension that the new laws would pave the way for eliminating the safety cushion of Minimum Support Price and are overriding the states APMC laws and do away with the Mandi system, leaving them at the mercy of big corporates
For more than a month now, farmers have been staging protests against these farm laws. The farmers who comprised nearly 55 per cent of India’s population representing a common identity and many genuine players and also vested interests have jumped into the fray. The Supreme Court on Wednesday sought response of the Union government on a public interest litigation challenging the constitutional validity of newly enacted three farm laws on grounds including that Parliament lacked power to make legislations on the subject.
The petition also raised questions over the validity of ‘the Constitution (3rd Amendment Act) of 1954′ which allegedly empowered the Centre to frame such laws on agriculture. While issuing notice to the Ministry of Law and Justice on the PIL by a lawyer, a bench headed by Chief Justice S A Bobde said it would hear on 11 January all the pleas challenging the new farm laws as also the ones raising issues related to the ongoing farmers’ protest at Delhi borders. In the present case, the central farm laws do not touch or interfere with the existing state laws, however, the new legislations have provided for alternative platform for the farmers and given more options.
The bench, also comprising Justices A S Bopanna and V Ramasubramanian, took note of the petition which also contended that the subject ‘agriculture’ has wrongly been put in the concurrent list in the Constitution by Parliament in 1954. The SC also allowed the lawyer to amend his PIL in which he has also sought quashing of the three laws. Earlier on 19 November, the bench had restored the PIL which was earlier dismissed on 12 October and he was asked to approach the High Court instead. In the meantime, fresh rounds of talks are also to be held between farmers and the government. Finding an amicable solution is the need of the hour.
Farmers have to understand the importance of fundamental reforms in Agriculture in this country and relent on their exclusive demand of repealing these laws as such rigid posture leaves no scope for any dialogue for desired improvements or amendments. The Government should also need to climb-down and offer to make concessions to farmers who are refusing to budge. With stray voices grumbling about democracy obstructing reforms, it is to be seen whether after six years of ousting protest and negotiation from politics, the Government realises that laws cannot be rammed through by legislative majority alone.
