Manas Dasgupta
NEW DELHI, Ian 11: Just short of passing an order, the Supreme Court on Monday made it abundantly clear about its disappointment over the handling of the farmers’ strike by the central government and wanted it to stay the implementation of the three contentious farm laws to enable a committee of experts to bring out an amicable solution to the dispute.
The apex court also refused to buy the claim of the centre that a vast majority of the farmers across the country had found the three laws to be actually beneficial. It also expressed the concern that if the situation was allowed to drift like it at present with neither side showing any sign of settlement, it could result into breach of peace and violence. “We do not want blood on our hands,” the chief justice of India S A Bobde remarked.
The central government through the attorney general K K Venugopal, however, made its stand clear that it was not in favour of staying the implementation of the acts. Pointing out the precedents that the courts could not stay legislations, Venugopal said, “A law can only be stayed if it’s passed without legislative competence, violates fundamental rights or violates provisions of Constitution.”
The centre has also repeatedly told the agitating farmers that it would not repeal the acts at any cost though was ready to carry out necessary amendments if the farmers could point out the drawbacks in the three farm laws.
A three-judge bench headed by the chief justice and comprising Justices A S Bopanna and V Ramasubramanian was hearing a batch of petitions including those filed by DMK lawmaker Tiruchi Siva and RJD’s Manoj K Jha, against the constitutional validity of three farm laws, along with the plea to remove protesting farmers.
The apex court said it was “extremely disappointed” with the way negotiations were being held between the Centre and the farmers. “What is going on? States are rebelling against your laws,” the bench told the Centre. “We are extremely disappointed at the way the government is handling the talks. What consultative process was followed by you before passing the laws? All are up in rebellion against the laws,” it added.
The top court also asked the Centre to make a statement on putting the laws on hold that can give way to the court forming a committee of independent experts to go through the laws threadbare.
“Our intention is to see if we can bring about an amicable resolution of the problem. Why don’t you (Centre) put your laws on hold? If there is some sense of responsibility now, you can say we will not implement our laws. We will have a committee of distinguished officers… Withhold the implementation of laws till there is a discussion by the proposed committee,” it said.
As Venugopal opposed staying the implementation of the laws and instead claimed that millions of farmers across the country had found the laws to be actually beneficial to their cause, Bobde remarked, why then there was not a single petition before the bench which say the laws were beneficial. “If the vast majority thinks this law is beneficial, let them say to the committee.”
“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 the law,” the top court said.
The apex court has suggested names of former CJIs including RM Lodha to head panel for exploring the possibility of a solution over farm laws protests. The bench said it would pass orders on the issue in parts.
The apex court refused to grant extra time to the Centre to explore the possibility of amicable solution saying it had already granted the government a “long rope.”
“We have given you a long rope, Mr Attorney General, please don’t lecture us on patience,” a bench headed by Chief Justice S A Bobde said after Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told the bench that the top court has made “harsh observations” regarding handling of the situation by the government.
“That was the most innocuous factual thing for us to say,” the bench said. “We don’t want to make any stray observations against you… But we are extremely disappointed in the way you’re handling this situation. You [Centre] made a law without enough consultation, resulting in a strike. Many States are up in rebellion against you… The whole thing has been going on for months… You say you are negotiating, talking… What negotiating? What talking? What is going on?” Bobde asked Venugopal and Mehta appearing for the Centre.
The top court was also apprehensive about the developing situation on the Delhi’s borders where the farmers were squatting for the last 47 days demanding repeal of the laws. It said it felt that someday some intended or unintended incident may happen that could breach the peace. “We don’t want blood on our hands. There should be no bloodshed or violence,” it said. It said that if the three laws are put on hold, the negotiations will be much better.
Senior advocate Dushyant Dave, who was representing some of the farmers unions told the court that the farmers would not take out parallel tractor rally to the Republic Day parade on the streets of the national capital.
As Venugopal brought up the issue of protesting farmers vandalising the venue of a pro-farm laws rally to be addressed by the Haryana chief minister Manohar Lal Khattar in Karnal on Sunday and said the government did not “intend to protect the lawbreakers,” the top court bench responded asking Dave why would farmers march with their tractors to Rajpath in the national capital.
“We (farmer unions) will not do that,” Dave replied. “The farmers have their family members in the security forces. They will not do that. I will not make a statement. There are 400 unions at the protest site. There are 150,000 farmers there.”
Talks between the Centre and farmer unions on the new agriculture laws failed to make any headway even after the eighth round of talks. The Centre and the farmer leaders are scheduled to hold their next meeting on January 15.
Farmers have been protesting at different borders of the national capital 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.
Meanwhile, outside the court, Bharatiya Kisan Union president Naresh Tikait said the central government should abandon its “stubborn” attitude and resolve the issues of farmers through dialogue.
Speaking to reporters he said farmers were aware that the three new agri laws have been brought by the Centre “to benefit big corporates” and are “against peasants.”