Ahead of Tuesday's order, Supreme Court makes crucial observations on farmers' protests
A view of the Supreme Court of India.
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court will pronounce orders on Tuesday on various issues related to the new farm laws and the farmers' ongoing protest at Delhi borders. It may also take a call on setting up of a committee headed by a former Chief Justice of India (CJI) to find ways to resolve the impasse.
A bench, headed by Chief Justice SA Bobde indicated during the hearing that it may pass orders in parts.
Hearing the petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the three new farm laws, the Supreme Court on Monday made several crucial observations on several issues related to farmers' protests.
A bench, headed by Chief Justice SA Bobde indicated during the hearing that it may pass orders in parts.
Hearing the petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the three new farm laws, the Supreme Court on Monday made several crucial observations on several issues related to farmers' protests.
Here are five key observations made by the SC:
1
"Form a committee to examine farm laws"
The Supreme Court has proposed to form a committee of experts on farm laws to examine the contentions raised by the farmers unions.
The committee will include experts from the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR).
The court asked the parties to suggest two-three names of former CJIs including former CJI RM Lodha who can head the apex court-appointed panel.
The court said that whatever apprehensions farmers have, they can express it in front of the panel.
Notably, the court said that it may consider the recommendations made by the panel, further observing that while repeal of farm laws was a "delicate subject" but the court may consider to stay the laws if the committee recommends.
The committee will include experts from the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR).
The court asked the parties to suggest two-three names of former CJIs including former CJI RM Lodha who can head the apex court-appointed panel.
The court said that whatever apprehensions farmers have, they can express it in front of the panel.
Notably, the court said that it may consider the recommendations made by the panel, further observing that while repeal of farm laws was a "delicate subject" but the court may consider to stay the laws if the committee recommends.
Security arrangements to block the roads at the protest site, Delhi (Credits: ANI)
2
“We don't see why there is an insistence on implementation"
The Supreme Court questioned the Centre's vehement opposition to its suggestion that the implementation of three new farm laws be held back for the time being.
The SC said that either the implementation of these statutes be held back or the top court itself will proceed to do so on the recommendation of the court-appointed panel.
Attorney General KK Venugopal told the bench that a law cannot be stayed unless the court finds it violates fundamental rights or constitutional schemes.
The bench, however, observed, “We are doing this because you have failed to solve the problem. The Union of India has to take the responsibility. The laws have resulted into a strike and now you have to solve the strike”.
The SC said that either the implementation of these statutes be held back or the top court itself will proceed to do so on the recommendation of the court-appointed panel.
Attorney General KK Venugopal told the bench that a law cannot be stayed unless the court finds it violates fundamental rights or constitutional schemes.
The bench, however, observed, “We are doing this because you have failed to solve the problem. The Union of India has to take the responsibility. The laws have resulted into a strike and now you have to solve the strike”.
3
"Talks between Centre and farmers are breaking down"
The top court said it may stay the implementation of these laws as talks between the government and farmers are “breaking down”.
The court observed that the Centre wants to discuss these legislations point by point, while the farmers want them to be repealed.
The Attorney General said that laws cannot be stayed in such manner, to which the SC said, “We are at this position. We are sorry to say that you have not been able to solve this problem. You as the Union of India has failed to solve the problem and the agitation.”
The court asked Venugopal to give a list of earlier judgements dealing with the issue of stay on implementation of law.
The eighth round of talks between the Centre and the farmer unions on January 7 had ended in a stalemate.
Centre ruled out repealing the contentious laws, while the farmers' leaders said they are ready to fight till death and their 'ghar waapsi' will happen only after 'law waapsi'.
The court observed that the Centre wants to discuss these legislations point by point, while the farmers want them to be repealed.
The Attorney General said that laws cannot be stayed in such manner, to which the SC said, “We are at this position. We are sorry to say that you have not been able to solve this problem. You as the Union of India has failed to solve the problem and the agitation.”
The court asked Venugopal to give a list of earlier judgements dealing with the issue of stay on implementation of law.
The eighth round of talks between the Centre and the farmer unions on January 7 had ended in a stalemate.
Centre ruled out repealing the contentious laws, while the farmers' leaders said they are ready to fight till death and their 'ghar waapsi' will happen only after 'law waapsi'.
Farmers burn an effigy at the protest site, Delhi. (Credits: ANI)
4
"Don't lecture us on patience"
The Supreme Court said that the court granted enough time to the government to reach a negotiation but it has remained adamant on the farm laws.
"We have given you enough long rope Mr Attorney General, please don't lecture us on patience," said the court after Venugopal sought more time to resolve the standoff.
"We don't know whether you are part of the solution or part of the problem," it further added.
The SC asked the Centre, "What is going on? States are rebelling against your laws."
"There is not a single petition before us which says that these farm laws are beneficial to farmers. Our intention was to see a negotiated solution" but there has been no response from Centre on willingness to put farm laws on hold, said the court.
"We have given you enough long rope Mr Attorney General, please don't lecture us on patience," said the court after Venugopal sought more time to resolve the standoff.
"We don't know whether you are part of the solution or part of the problem," it further added.
The SC asked the Centre, "What is going on? States are rebelling against your laws."
"There is not a single petition before us which says that these farm laws are beneficial to farmers. Our intention was to see a negotiated solution" but there has been no response from Centre on willingness to put farm laws on hold, said the court.
Farmers pitch tents at the protest site, Delhi.
5
"Might stay implementation of laws without staying the laws"
The bench said that till date it has not been told anything by the Centre on the proposal given by the top court to keep the implementation of these laws at abeyance for some time.
“We are still thinking it is equally important that we stay the implementation of law without staying the laws,” the bench said.
To this, Venugopal said, “This amounts to same thing”.
SC suggested that stay on implementation of these laws will help the court-appointed committee in finding solution.
“After the implementation of farm laws are stayed, you can carry on protest and we don't want anyone to say that we stifled the protest,” the bench told the advocates appearing for several farmer organisations.
“We are still thinking it is equally important that we stay the implementation of law without staying the laws,” the bench said.
To this, Venugopal said, “This amounts to same thing”.
SC suggested that stay on implementation of these laws will help the court-appointed committee in finding solution.
“After the implementation of farm laws are stayed, you can carry on protest and we don't want anyone to say that we stifled the protest,” the bench told the advocates appearing for several farmer organisations.
more from times of india news