Supreme Court observes: Why not stay 3 farm laws till deadlock ends?

First Published Jan 11, 2021, 2:35 PM IST

The Supreme Court has made vital observations in the case pertaining to the petitions filed against the Centre's new farm laws. Among them, the bench of Chief Justice of India, SA Bobde and Justices AS Bopanna and V Ramasubramanian said it was in favour of keeping the three farm laws in abeyance till the deadlock between the Centre and protesting farmers is resolved.
 

<p>The Apex court, which is expected to pass a final order in a day or two, said that it proposes&nbsp;to form a committee and if the government does not stay the law, then "we will stay the implementation of the Farm Acts".&nbsp;<br />
&nbsp;</p>

<p>"We are extremely disappointed with the way Centre is dealing with this. We are doing this because you have failed to solve the problem. The Union of India has to take responsibility. The laws have resulted in a strike and now you have to solve the strike," the bench was quoted by legal website Bar and Bench.<br />
&nbsp;</p>

<p>Clarifying its position, the Supreme Court said its intention was to see if there can be an "amicable resolution to the problem".&nbsp;<br />
&nbsp;</p>

<p>Farmers have been protesting since November 26 last year against the Farmers' Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) Act, 2020, the Farmers (Empowerment and Protection) Agreement on Price Assurance and Farm Services Act, 2020, and the Essential Commodities (Amendment) Act, 2020.</p>

The Apex court, which is expected to pass a final order in a day or two, said that it proposes to form a committee and if the government does not stay the law, then "we will stay the implementation of the Farm Acts". 
 

"We are extremely disappointed with the way Centre is dealing with this. We are doing this because you have failed to solve the problem. The Union of India has to take responsibility. The laws have resulted in a strike and now you have to solve the strike," the bench was quoted by legal website Bar and Bench.
 

Clarifying its position, the Supreme Court said its intention was to see if there can be an "amicable resolution to the problem". 
 

Farmers have been protesting since November 26 last year against the Farmers' Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) Act, 2020, the Farmers (Empowerment and Protection) Agreement on Price Assurance and Farm Services Act, 2020, and the Essential Commodities (Amendment) Act, 2020.

<p>Chief Justice SA Bobde observed: "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, then 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."</p>

Chief Justice SA Bobde observed: "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, then 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."

<p><strong>Centre defends the three farm laws</strong><br />
&nbsp;</p>

<p>The Centre, meanwhile, maintained that the laws need not be kept in abeyance as they were not beyond legislative competence or violative of any fundamental rights. Attorney General KK Venugopal also contended that pointed out the protests were limited to a certain region.<br />
&nbsp;</p>

<p>"Farmers from South India have not protested. Why? Because the laws are for their benefit. That is why we are asking them to understand the law. Haryana CM also wanted to meet the farmers but the entire set up of the meeting was destroyed. Press reporters were assaulted," Venugopal said.<br />
&nbsp;</p>

<p>On being probed by the CJI whether the Centre was part of the problem or solution, the Attorney General said, "We are part of the solution. Many organizations, including farmer unions, have come to us and reiterated that the laws are progressive and that we (Centre) should not give in."</p>

Centre defends the three farm laws
 

The Centre, meanwhile, maintained that the laws need not be kept in abeyance as they were not beyond legislative competence or violative of any fundamental rights. Attorney General KK Venugopal also contended that pointed out the protests were limited to a certain region.
 

"Farmers from South India have not protested. Why? Because the laws are for their benefit. That is why we are asking them to understand the law. Haryana CM also wanted to meet the farmers but the entire set up of the meeting was destroyed. Press reporters were assaulted," Venugopal said.
 

On being probed by the CJI whether the Centre was part of the problem or solution, the Attorney General said, "We are part of the solution. Many organizations, including farmer unions, have come to us and reiterated that the laws are progressive and that we (Centre) should not give in."