Supreme Court of India Stays the Implementation of Three Farm Laws

  

Introduction

 

Recently, the matter of Rakesh Vaishnav and Others v. Union of India and Others came up before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and vide Order dated 12.01.2021, reported as 2021 SCC OnLine SC 15, the Hon’ble Court made some very pertinent observations in relation to the farmers’ agitation and the three farm laws recently passed by the Parliament of India.

 

Important Observations by the Court

 

1. The petitions before the Hon’ble Supreme Court revolved around the validity of three farm laws, namely, (1) Farmers’ Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) Act, 2020; (2) Essential Commodities (Amendment) Act, 2020; and (3) Farmers (Empowerment and Protection) Agreement on Price Assurance and Farm Services Act, 2020.

 

2. The Hon’ble Court observed that several rounds of negotiations have taken place between the Government of India and the Farmers’ bodies, but no solution seems to be in sight. The Hon’ble Court also observed that senior citizens, women and children are present at the site and are at a risk of catching cold and covid. Also.  many people have died due to illnesses and by way of suicide. The Court further lauded the farmers that their agitation has been peaceful so far but also observed that there is also an averment supported by the Government that some organization that has been banned for anti-India secessionist movement is financing the agitation.

 

3. The Hon’ble Court granted stay on the implementation of the farm laws and provided inter alia the following observations in this regard: -

 

“8. Be that as it may, the negotiations between the farmers' bodies and the Government have not yielded any result so far. Therefore, we are of the view that the constitution of a Committee of experts in the field of agriculture to negotiate between the farmers' bodies and the Government of India may create a congenial atmosphere and improve the trust and confidence of the farmers. We are also of the view that a stay of implementation of all the three farm laws for the present, may assuage the hurt feelings of the farmers and encourage them to come to the negotiating table with confidence and good faith.

….

10. Though we appreciate the aforesaid submission of the learned Attorney General, this Court cannot be said to be completely powerless to grant stay of any executive action under a statutory enactment. Even very recently this Court passed an interim Order in Dr. Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil v. The Chief Minister (Civil Appeal No. 3123 of 2020) directing that admissions to educational institutions for the Academic Year 2020-21 and appointments to public services and posts under the Government shall be made without reference to the reservation provided under the impugned legislation.”

 

4. Thus, the Court thought it appropriate to order a stay on the implementation of the three farm laws until further orders and ordered a Four Member Committee to look into the grievances of the farmers and make recommendations within two months from the date of the first sitting. Further, the Court also passed an Interim Order stating that the Minimum Support Price System (MSP) shall be maintained until furthers orders and no farmer shall be dispossessed or deprived of his title as a result of any action taken under the Farm Laws.

 

5. Lastly, the Court concluded by stating the following: -

 

“15. While we may not stifle a peaceful protest, we think that this extraordinary order of stay of implementation of the farm laws will be perceived as an achievement of the purpose of such protest at least for the present and will encourage the farmers bodies to convince their members to get back to their livelihood, both in order to protect their own lives and health and in order to protect the lives and properties of others.”

 

Analysis and Concluding Remarks

 

In my humble opinion, it is a peculiar Order by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as it clearly expressed its concern about the ongoing situation in relation to the farmers’ agitation. Stay on the implementation of any law is hard to find in judicial pronouncements but be that as it may, such power vests with the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Court also cited the case of Dr. Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil v. The Chief Minister, wherein a question has arisen with respect to providing of reservation in excess of 50% by way of Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBC) Act, 2018, in Maharashtra, which is in transgression of the 50% ceiling limit fixed by the case of Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, 1992 Supp. (3) 217 and reaffirmed in the case of M. Nagaraj v. Union of India, (2006) 8 SCC 212. In the said, the Court also observed that the Indra Sawhney (supra) Judgment needs a revisit in light of the 102^nd and 103^rd Constitutional Amendments. Thus, expounding the principles of interim injunction, the Court opined that if it is convinced that a statute/legislation is ex facie unconstitutional and factors such as: -

 

1. Balance of Convenience

2. Irreparable Injury

3. Public Interest

 

are in favour of passing an interim Order, the Court can grant interim relief. The Court also observed that there is always a presumption in favour of constitutional validity of a legislation but there is no absolute rule to restrain interim orders being passed in terms of the above.

 

Hence, the observations in the Dr. Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil (supra) may give us a fair idea about the reasoning adopted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court while imposing a stay on the implementation of the three farm laws and directing that no farmer shall be dispossessed of his land under the three Farm Laws. I think that Irreparable Injury and Public Interest could have been the pre-dominant reasons in passing of such Interim Orders; however, what is interesting to note is that the Hon’ble Supreme Court did not deal with the question of unconstitutionality of the three farm laws. Let us hope that the current deadlock is resolved soon.