In a setback for the Centre, the Supreme Court on Monday asked the government to place all 3 farm laws on hold till the challenges flagged by farmers are resolved. It also proposed a committee to be formed to appear into the contentious challenges in the legislations. “We propose to form a committee and if the government does not then we will stay the implementation of the farm acts,” the CJI mentioned.
The bench headed by CJI mentioned: “Talks are breaking down because the centre wants to discuss point by point of law and farmers want it to be repealed. We will stay the implementation of the farm acts.” The court also mentioned that these unions supporting the acts had not come ahead of it to express their help.
The CJI mentioned that the court was particularly disappointed with the way Centre was dealing with the challenges. “What consultative process has been followed for farm bills that entire states are up in rebellion,” he asked Attorney General Venugopal. The AG then study out the particulars of the consultative approach, stating how the state APMC acts had been amended and such amendments began for the duration of the earlier regime.
The bench mentioned that its intention was to see if it can bring about an amicable resolution to the difficulty. “That is why we asked you why don’t you put the farm bills on hold. You want time for negotiation. If there is some sense of responsibility showing that you will not implement the laws. We can form a committee with ICAR members to look into this. Till then you can continue to put the law on hold. Why will you insist on continuing the law anyhow,” the SC mentioned.
Then AG mentioned that so a lot of organizations had come to the Centre from farmer unions and stated that the laws are progressive and that the government really should not give in to the protests. To this, the CJI mentioned that there was not a single pleading ahead of it which mentioned it was oppressive. “Let those farmer unions who say it is progressive say that before the committee. But you have to tell us whether you stay the farm acts or we do it. Keep it in abeyance. What is the issue? We are not in favour of easily staying a law but we want to say don’t implement law,” it SC mentioned.
During the hearing, AG Venugopal mentioned that none of the petitions pointed to any provision of 3 farm acts stating that they are unconstitutional. To this, the CJI mentioned that the bench was not declaring them ‘unconstitutional’. The AG then mentioned that the laws can not be stayed. “This is drastic.” To this the CJI mentioned: “We are doing this because you have failed to solve the problem. Union of India has to take the responsibility. The laws has resulted into a strike and now you have to solve the strike.”
The lawyer common urged the SC that let the farmers come and say to the committee but do not remain it. He mentioned: “A law cannot be stayed unless its beyond legislative competence or violative of fundamental rights of against any constitutional provision. None of the petitioners have argued on this. Each one of this in support of farmers and farm acts are in their benefit.”
The AG additional mentioned that the farmers from South India had not protested mainly because the laws are for their advantage. “That is why we are asking them to understand the law”. He additional mentioned that Haryana CM ML Khattar wanted to meet the farmers yeaterday but the complete set up of the meeting was destroyed.” On this, the bench headed by CJI mentioned: “We should not be understood that we are protecting any law breaker. If someone breaks the law they will face the consequences sequences. We are not encouraging breaking of law. We propose to pass this order to prevent loss of life and property.”