Supreme Court is hearing a clutch of petitionsseeking removal of protesting farmers from Delhi borders. The All India Kisan SangarshCoordination Committee (AIKSCC) had said that the government is using the Supreme Court as a 'political shield.'
In the hearing, the Chief Justice of India (CJI), S.A. Bobde tellsAttorney General (AG), K.K Venugopal, "We are extremely disappointed atthe way government is handling all this. We don't know what consultativeprocess you followed before the laws. Many states are up in rebellion."The CJI further asked , "What negotiations are going on? We aredisappointed." To this, the AG replied that these laws were enacted as perthe recommendations of expert committee during last government regarding theremoval of restrictions in the APMC system and to allow direct marketing.
CJI again asserted, "It will not help you to saythat this was started by last government. We are discussing constitutionality.You are saying negotiations are going on. But what negotiations?" The CJIfurther adds that the parties have put the court in a delicate situation andthey are reading the reports where parties are saying the courts will decide. TheCJI says, they want an amicable solution to the problem.
When Tushar Mehta seeks permission to intervene, the CJIsaid, "We don't know if you are part of the problem or solution" to whichSolicitor General of India, Mehta replied that they are the part of thesolution. The CJI points that "wedon't have any single petition before us saying that the laws are good." TheSG again says that many farmers' organizations tell them that the laws areprogressive and they have no difficulty. The CJI snaps by saying that hedoesn't want to go into these details. The SC proposes to stay the contentious laws. The court had earlier also asked the government to hold the laws inDecember, however it didn't get any response.
CJI added, "People are committing suicide. Peopleare suffering in the cold." The court proposes that the committee shouldbe set up. After all these arguments, Senior Advocate Harish Salve (ForHaryana) intervenes to make several submissions. The CJI says, "Each one of us will be responsible ifsomething goes wrong. We don't want anybody's blood on our hands." Ina hearing further the court makes it clear that court cannot pass an order that citizens cannot protest. Salvesays, "If the lordships are staying the laws, then let the farmers calloff the protests."
While Advocate ML Sharma submits reports in which hemakes points that the protests are peaceful and the police is causing problems.He said he challenged the amendment that included the entry relating toagriculture markets in concurrent list. CJI interrupts that they are not goingto stay a 1954 Constitution amendment. The court will listen to theconstitutionality of this amendment later.
Tushar Mehtaagain tried to bring another side of the picture by saying that the courtcannot stay legislation; the court pointed out that it is not a completepicture.
Attorney general says, "Court cannot stay alegislation unless the court finds that:
a. Law is passed without legislative competence.
b. Law violates fundamental rights.
c. Law violate other provisions of constitution.
He argued that he had not seen any argument in any of thepetitions raising the above three points. He said, "The law is a crystallization of the recommendations of several committees. Only two or threestates are objecting..." He also makes a point about Haryana ChiefMinister's event that was cancelled. He further adds that Supreme Courtcorrespondent and many journalists also got injured during the protest at CM's event.
The CJI responds, "We are not be understood assaying we are protecting any law breaker......we propose to pass the order toprevent violence and breaking down of laws." When AG requests the court todirect farmers to not do such things if they want to get any consideration fromthe court. In reference to the tractor march, Dushyant Dave on behalf of thefarmers' group said, "We are not going to do that." Dave furthersays, "Lots of farmers in states ruled by the ruling party have beenprevented from coming to the protests."
CJIagain asserted that staying the implementation and staying the law are twodifferent things. Dave said farmers never said to disruptRepublic day and AG asks to record his statement. Dushyant Dave said, "Ifthe government is really serious, the government can convene a joint session ofParliament to discuss this. I don't know why government is not doingthat." Now Harish Salve says that there are some elements like Vancouver(Canada) based 'Justice for Sikhs' that should be weeded out. Salve furthersays that farmers must approach the committee with an open mind.
Thosefor the implementation of Laws:
a. Advocate M. Devnath submits that he appears before thecourt for confederation of All India Traders who demand the implementation oflaws and they should be heard before the committee.
b. Anotherintervenor for the Consortium of South Indian Consumers have also intervenedseeking implementation of the laws and they also be heard by the committee.
CJI asserted, "Canyou persuade the Punjab farmers who have been protesting for two months? Noright? Let the committee look into it." While another intervenor urgesthe court not to stay implementation of the laws. The court says they have amost serious concerns of possible loss of life and property.
WhatH.S. Phoolka said?
Senior advocate of the Supreme Court of India, H.S.Phoolka said, "From my village, 40 trolleys have come including oldpeople. They refuse to go back. Haryana Chief Minister called them Naxals, Khalistanis etc.The old people said they have sons in the Army and they were calledanti-national."
To this, CJI replied, "Mr. Phoolka, passions are running high. But you must tell them to go back. There is cold. There is Covid. It is not necessary that they should be there at protests." Mr.Bobde further adds, "I want to take a risk. I want you to tell them thatthe Chief Justice of India wants them to go back. Try to persuade them."
Now Attorney General again said if the court stay thelaw, it will cause loss to 2,000 farmers entered into contract for sellingproducts in grain markets.
After arguments and counter arguments, the court asks forsuggestions of any previous Chief Justice who can be a part of the committee.One of the suggestions by Dave was of RM Lodha. The court said, it will pass the orders tomorrow and Attorney Generalasked, "Don't be in a hurry." To this, CJI said, "Why not? We havegiven you a very long rope. Don't lecture us on patience. We will decide whento pass the order. We might pass in part today and in part tomorrow.
CJI asked Tushar Mehta to file an application when heurged court to pass an injunction to restrain protests, disrupting Republic day.SG, Mehta again submits that farmers' groups have been non-cooperative during thetalks.
Heasked, "Kindly remove the impression that we did not do enough. We gaveour best."
The court was disappointed with the behavior of thegovernment. The deadlock between the government and farmers over thecontentious farm laws have reached a level where the question of lawand order have arisen.With the court's assertion to stay the implementation, farmer organizations may get a breather but their demand to repeal the laws remained unfulfilled.