In one of its rare outbursts against the government of late, a Supreme Court bench, headed by Chief Justice SA Bobde, questioned the process behind the enactment of the farm laws and expressed deep “disappointment” at the handling of the Center of agricultural protests.
By scheduling his order for today, the court indicated that he could even keep implementation of the new agricultural laws to apparently “facilitate” a solution.
CJI Bobde beat around the bush: “We don’t think the Center is handling the issue correctly. We don’t think it’s being effective. “
In suggesting that the court would appoint a committee that “will tell us if the laws are in the public interest,” CJI Bobde said: “We propose to form a committee and if the government does not do so, then we will maintain the implementation of the agricultural laws … doing this because he has not been able to solve the problem. We are proposing to pass this order to facilitate the resolution of this problem by a committee chosen by us … We will make the environment comfortable and conducive to discussions. Until then, the agricultural laws will they can suspend … If the laws are suspended, the negotiations will have a chance to work. “
As the court was about to get up for the day, Attorney General Tushar Mehta told the court, also made up of Justices AS Bopanna and V Ramasubramanian, that the court made “harsh remarks” to which the CJI said: “That It was the safest thing in fact for us to say. “
The court’s remarks come after the latest round of talks between protesters and the government on January 8. failed to make any progress and the unions claimed that the government had asked them to go to court, a move they said they opposed.
“What consultative process has been followed for farm bills where entire states are in rebellion?” CJI Bobde asked. “We regret to tell you that you, as the Union of India, cannot solve the problem. He has made a law without sufficient consultation that resulted in a strike. Now you have to resolve the strike ”.
The court said it is concerned about any possible disturbance of the peace. Who is going to be responsible for the bloodshed? We need to defend article 21 (protection of life and liberty) as a constitutional court. What happens if a conflagration occurs? “asked the CJI.
As the hearing drew to a close, the bank said it could approve orders on Monday or Tuesday. When Attorney General KK Venugopal urged the court not to be in a hurry and follow Tuesday’s orders, the bank responded: “Why not? We have given you a very long rope. Don’t lecture us about patience. We will decide when to place the order. “
The court was hearing a series of petitions challenging the validity of the three laws: Farmers Agreement (Empowerment and Protection) on Price Guarantee and Agricultural Services Act, 2020; Trade in Agricultural Products and Trade (Promotion and Facilitation) Act 2020 and Essential Products (Amendment) Act 2020.
Venugopal opposed the court’s suggestion to suspend the laws, saying it would be “drastic.” He pointed out that a law cannot be suspended by the courts unless it is beyond the competence of the legislature or violates fundamental rights or is contrary to some constitutional provision. It noted that none of the petitioners have argued this and, on the contrary, many support the laws. The CJI clarified that the court does not declare the laws unconstitutional.
Regarding the consultation mechanism, the GA said that the process had started during the previous government period. But the court said: “Please understand that it will not help you that another government started it.”
Venugopal noted that farmers’ unions insisted that unless the laws were repealed, their protests would continue. The bank responded by saying it was not getting into the repeal issue.
“Our intention is to see if we can reach an amicable solution to the problem. So we asked them why they don’t put the law on hold… Then we can form a committee with members of the Indian Council for Agricultural Research… ”said the CJI.
When the CJI asked if the government is “part of the problem or the solution”, Attorney General Mehta responded that “we are part of the solution” adding that many agricultural unions had said that the laws are progressive and “that we must not compromise. “.
But the court said there was no petition before that said the law was beneficial, adding that those who feel the laws are progressive could say so before the committee.
The CJI noted that before the New Year’s break, the court had asked the government if it could suspend the laws, but there was no response.
“People are committing suicide. People are suffering from the cold. Who takes care of the water and food? The old men and women are on the ground. Why the elders in the farmers’ protests? “The CJI asked and added that the court did not want to comment on the unrest.
Since the attorney general opposes the suspension of the laws, the CJI wondered if the court can suspend the implementation of the law without suspending the law. The attorney general said this was the same.
“Maintaining a law and maintaining the implementation of a law is different. We can always stay as an executive action under a law, ”said the CJI.
Lead attorney Harish Salve, who will appear on behalf of a Delhi resident who has highlighted the hardships caused to citizens by the protests, said there must be a guarantee that farmers will not turn their back if the laws are suspended.
“We are not going to have a last hearing. They will appear before the committee, ”the court said, adding that lead attorney Dushyant Dave had said so.
In intervening, Dave said there are 400 organizations and that he would need to seek instructions to appear before the committee. The CJI wondered why the farmers’ associations that appeared before the government were unable to appear before the committee.
Lead Attorney Colin Gonsalves, who appeared at some of the farmers’ unions, said that he, Dave, Attorney Prashant Bhushan and Lead Attorney HS Phoolka were part of a committee made up of farmers. “We will all consult the unions and take a position on it.”
Venugopal said talks with a committee (appointed by the court) might not work if the farmers’ unions reiterate their demand for repeal and nothing more. “They need to give clause-by-clause suggestions if it is not in their interest.”
The SC said it relies on lawyers like Dave, Phoolka, Gonsalves and Bhushan to convey the committee’s purpose to farmers.
The CJI said the protests can continue and the court does not want anyone to say they quelled the unrest, but once the laws are suspended, it is necessary to see if the protesters can be removed from the current site. “Frankly, we have the apprehension that there will be some incident, whether intentional or not, that could break the peace.”
The court said that “the responsibility lies with all of us … As a court, we will not say that you cannot protest. But we can say that it is not the only place to protest ”.
The attorney general referred to reports about the proposed tractor rally in Delhi and said that some 2,000 tractors will be driven to Rajpath to disrupt the Republic Day ceremony.
Dave assured me that nothing of the kind would happen. He told the court that the farmers have said that they have relatives in the Army and respect Republic Day.
Welcoming the statement on the Republic Day march, the CJI said that the police would take care of those matters. The right to protest is intact, he said, adding that protests should be like Gandhiji’s Satyagraha.
Lead advocate PS Narasimha, who appeared at the Indian Kisan Union, said many organizations believe the laws are beneficial and urged the court to hear him before a provisional order is granted.
Dave wondered why the government couldn’t convene a joint session of Parliament and debate the matter.
Lead attorney Vivek Tankha, representing some farmers’ unions in Madhya Pradesh, welcomed the court’s suggestion to suspend the laws.
Phoolka said that some of those who were captured at the protest site said that the police had tended them.
“I want to take a chance. I want you to tell them that the Chief Justice of India wants them (the elders) to come back. Try to persuade them, ”said the CJI.
The CJI also asked for suggestions on the names of former judges who can head the proposed committee. Dave suggested the name of former CJI judge RM Lodha. CJI Bobde said that he had already spoken with his predecessor, Judge P Sathasivam, who had expressed his inability citing his difficulty understanding Hindi.
.
