New Delhi: The Supreme Court recognized the right to stir farmers to non-violent protests, but also made it clear that it must not infringe on the fundamental rights of others to move freely and obtain food and other essential supplies while listening to a lot of petitions about the movement the farmers. .
The high court asked the farmers to get rid of their stubbornness and also asked the government not to rush, in addition to discussing the idea of suspending controversial farm laws to allow negotiations with agitated farmers. The Center, however, objected, saying the farmers would not show up for the talks.
Although the high court limited itself to raising this suggestion, the question arises: can you stop the law passed by Parliament? In particular, whenever such a situation arises in India, the verdict of the Supreme Court is considered supreme. Does it hinder the supremacy of Parliament? The ADN report will explain how the balance of power between Parliament and the Supreme Court has been balanced in the Indian Constitution, which in fact occupies the supreme position.
As soon as the high court began hearing the case on Thursday, Attorney General Tushar Mehta filed with the high court that the questions cannot be answered with “yes” and “no.” The government wants someone who can mediate between the two sides to break the deadlock, therefore instead of forming a committee some well-known people from society can come forward to facilitate this.
Lead advocate Harish Salve, representing the Haryana and Uttar Pradesh governments, said that in the name of the protests, the arteries of Delhi cannot be blocked as this has started to affect the prices of essential commodities in the states. neighbors. On this, the Delhi government lawyer said that there are more than 120 ways to enter the capital.
The Attorney General, however, said that the road closures are violating the fundamental rights of ordinary people. The peasants have come prepared to stay for 6 months, and in this way the roads are blocked only in times of war. In addition, he argued that in accordance with article 19 of the Constitution, it is also a violation of the freedom of movement of people from one place to another.
The Attorney General further argued that agitated farmers are not putting on masks, and this may further contribute to the rapid spread of the coronavirus, posing a danger to the health of others.
After hearing these arguments, the Supreme Court said it was concerned about the way things are happening, both the Center and a farmers union told it that negotiations are not happening at this time. He also said that farmers cannot continue to protest without speaking to the government. The bank, headed by Chief Justice SA Bobde, said: “The protest continues. You have the right. But you also have a purpose and that purpose is only fulfilled if you speak up, argue and come to a conclusion.”
The high court said it would approve an order on the constitution of a committee only after hearing from all parties, including protesting farmers’ unions, and postponing the Center’s implementation of the new farm laws would allow negotiations with farmers. . However, the Attorney General objected to the suggestion, saying that if the implementation of the farm laws is postponed, farmers will not show up for negotiations.
On live Tv
Furthermore, he said, “We are concerned about the plight of farmers. We are also Indians, but we are concerned about the way things are happening,” adding that “they (protesting farmers) are not a mob.” The high court said it will issue orders to serve notices to protesting farmers’ unions and give them the freedom to approach the holiday bank during winter break.
The main advocate and leader of Congress, P Chidambaram, who ran for the Punjab government, said that the farmers were fighting the arrogant government and had been prevented from entering Delhi. On this, the court said that if such a large number of people would come to Delhi, how would they be controlled?
The high court showed sympathy for the farmers and allowed them to continue their agitation, but also imposed the condition that the national capital cannot be held hostage on behalf of the protests.
Amid ongoing protests, Union Agriculture Minister Narendra Singh Tomar wrote a letter to farmers saying that confusion is spreading over the new farm laws and urged them not to be swayed by those who spread lies to obtain political gains. In the letter, Tomar said that many farmers across the country have started to take advantage of the new laws, adding that some farmer organizations are creating confusion among farmers about the new agricultural laws.
Tomar wrote: “The confusion regarding the laws, MSP, Mandi and the land is spreading. Some people are spreading lies about politics. I used to water my field late into the night, sometimes I used to wait many days to sell my products, I am aware of all this. Some people lie to farmers that the MSP will be closed. ”
Let’s try to understand what will happen if there is a conflict between the Supreme Court and the government over the new farm law. First, when the government enacts a law and the Supreme Court feels that it is violating the fundamental rights of the people, then it can reject the law.
Similarly, if the Supreme Court makes a verdict, the government finds the decision not correct, it can also reverse the decision of the higher court through Parliament. On many occasions, the Supreme Court has agreed that there is a limit to fundamental rights.
The Constitution of India has clearly stipulated that the Supreme Court is the custodian of the Constitution, so the higher court has the right to review the laws. On many occasions, the Supreme Court has reversed the government’s decisions and, in many cases, the government has also refused to accept the superior court’s decisions.
.
