The what and how of the Supreme Court order on the ongoing farmers’ protests – SC pulls up Centre | The Economic Times
According to a report by TOI, the Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected the Centre’s plea against putting the three new farm laws on hold and stayed their implementation for the time being. It also formed a four-member committee of experts to resolve the impasse between the government and protesting farmers.
What the government argued
Attorney General K K Venugopal agreed to the constitution of a four-member committee but vehemently opposed the grant of any interim stay of the implementation of the farm laws. He argued that none of the petitioners who have attacked the farm laws have pointed out any single provision which is detrimental to the farmers and that the laws enacted by Parliament cannot be stayed by this Court, especially when there is a presumption in favour of the constitutionality of legislation.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said that misapprehensions have been made that the land belonging to farmers will be taken away. “That is how the farmers have been misled,” he told the bench. The solicitor general also confirmed that there are inherent safeguards, in-built in the farm laws, for the protection of the land of the farmers and that it will be ensured that no farmer will lose his land. He also assured that the top court that the Minimum Support Price (MSP) system will continue.
The top court noted that negotiations between the farmers’ bodies and the government have “not yielded any result so far” and said the constitution of a committee of experts in the field of agriculture to negotiate may create a congenial atmosphere and improve the trust and confidence of farmers.
How the farmers reacted
The protesting farmers made it clear that they will not call off their agitation until the three farm laws are repealed. While the farm unions welcomed the top court’s order to stay the implementation of the laws, they asserted they will not appear before the committee as, according to them, its members were “pro-government”.