Updated: December 4, 2020 4:15:09 am
Farmers protest on the Singhu border during their ‘Delhi Chalo’ march against the Center’s agricultural reform laws in New Delhi. (PTI Photo: Atul Yadav / File)
IF the statements of the Union Agriculture Minister Narendra Singh Tomar are any indication, the central government could amend three main provisions of the Trade in Agricultural Products and Trade (Promotion and Facilitation) Act. These provisions actually represent the heart of the most contested legislation passed in the last session of Parliament. Amendments to them can therefore amount to a virtual repeal of the law.
The first provision relates to Section 6, which exempts transactions carried out outside the physical facilities of APMC (agricultural products market committee) mandis from any “market fee or duty or levy” imposed by state governments. The agricultural unions claim that it leads to an uneven playing field between the APMC mandi and the private collection centers or markets created under the new law.
All rice and wheat purchases made through government regulated mandis in Punjab now attract a 3% APMC market rate and 3% rural development rate. In Haryana, the same taxes amount to 2% each. Since there will be no taxes “under any APMC state law or any other state law” on alternative markets (“commercial areas”), it can potentially lead to a diversion of trade in existing mandi.
After Thursday’s meeting with representatives of the agricultural unions, Tomar said the government would examine ways to achieve “samyata” (level playing field) between the two markets. Although he did not elaborate, a proposal that is apparently being discussed is to exempt the new commercial areas from the market fee (justifiable, since the transactions are outside the limits of APMC mandi), but not the rural development process . The latter, imposed by the state government instead of APMCs, can also be imposed in private collection centers and markets.
The second amendment to the Law could be Section 15. According to it, disputes arising from transactions in alternative markets cannot be heard in ordinary civil courts. Instead, these are mandatorily forwarded to conciliation boards and appellate authorities designated by the local subdivision magistrates (SDM) and concerned district collectors. His orders would have the “force of the decree of a civil court”. Section 15 establishes that “no civil court shall have jurisdiction to hear a claim or proceeding with respect to any matter, the knowledge of which may be taken and eliminated” by these authorities.
The agricultural unions have interpreted the jurisdiction of the civil courts as a denial of justice. The SDMs and the district collectors are not independent like the ordinary courts. Being part of the government system, they are more likely to side with large corporate buyers, they argue.
“If farmers feel that they will not get justice from the SDMs and should be allowed to go directly to court, the government may consider this,” Tomar said.
A third amendment could be to Section 4, which requires any merchant who buys or sells in an alternative market to only have an income tax permanent account number (PAN) “or any other document that can be notified by the government. central”. Unions say this very limited requirement leaves room for operators who spend the night without paying farmers. This is different from APMC mandis licensed merchants, who cannot afford non-compliance. If farmers do not receive payment for their products, they can now turn to APMC authorities, who can cancel the licenses of these traders and even collect bank guarantees presented by them.
“We wanted to simplify the laws. But if farmers feel that anyone can easily get a PAN card today and there should be additional protection through merchant registration, the government can consider that too, ”Tomar said.
.
