Source:-https:\/\/www.hindustantimes.com<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Supreme Court stepped in on Wednesday to try and end the impasse between farmers\u2019 unions and the Centre over the contentious new laws to open up trade in agriculture, observing that the protest will soon become a national issue and that recent events suggest government negotiations with the unions were \u201cbound to fail again.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The organisation spearheading the protest said in its initial reaction that the court\u2019s decision was moral victory for the farmers, but insisted that the laws should be repealed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
A bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) SA Bobde will hold a joint hearing of the government and the farmers\u2019 organisations on Thursday, indicating that the court will set up a committee of representatives of both sides to discuss and resolve the dispute.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cIt doesn\u2019t seem the negotiations between the government and farmers will work,\u201d the court said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The CJI-led bench is already seized of a clutch of petitions that have challenged the validity of the laws passed in September. These will also come up for hearing on Thursday. At least six factions of the BKU will be there at Thursday\u2019s hearing. Permission was granted to implead major farm unions as respondents in the case, including the Bharatiya Kisan Union (BKU – Rajesh Tikait), BKU – Sidhupur (Jagjeet S. Dallewal), BKU\u2009- Rajewal (Balbeer Singh Rajewal), BKU – Lakhowal (Harinder Singh Lakhowal), and others.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The three laws triggered a massive protest by farmers, mainly from Punjab and Haryana, who have massed at the borders of Delhi since November 26. The laws allow agribusinesses to trade with minimal regulation, permit traders to stockpile large quantities of food commodities for economies of scale and lay down new contract farming rules.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Farmers say the new rules favour big corporations to whom they will lose business and gradually end the system of state-set minimum prices. Protesters decided to call off further negotiations on December 8, after a meeting with home minister Amit Shah, claiming a stalemate.The government has offered to amend the laws substantially; the farmers\u2019 unions want nothing short of their repeal.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cThe SC\u2019s order, in which it suggested a committee for negotiations, are a big moral victory for farmers. But talks will help only if they are about withdrawing the three laws,\u201d said Avik Saha, secretary of the All India Kisan Coordination Committee, a large platform of farm unions spearheading the protests.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The AIKSCC said the Prime Minister was misinforming the nation about the Acts not affecting farmers\u2019 land, about minimum support prices and diverting attention from the real issues by invoking the bogey of \u201cOpposition fooling farmers\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cThe Movement in Delhi will continue till 3 Acts are withdrawn. Farmers always ready to explain their issues to either the court or government. We will come up with more detailed views after studying the SC order,\u201d said Darshan Pal, another farmers\u2019 leader.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
During the hearing on Wednesday, solicitor general Tushar Mehta, representing the Union government, complained that \u201csome other interests\u201d have taken over the farmers\u2019 protests and that the protestors\u2019 representatives turn their chairs, showing their backs to the union ministers during the talks.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
They come with placards, written \u2018Yes or No\u2019. The government was ready and is still ready to engage in talks with the farmers. But the problem is that their stand is either you repeal the laws or we don\u2019t want to talk. I can submit that the government will not do anything which is against the interest of the farmers,\u201d added the law officer.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
But the bench was not impressed. \u201cWhat is the point of saying this when they perceive it to be against their interests? Your negotiations do not appear to work and are bound to fail again. What\u2019s the point of saying something very good when it serves no purpose since the farmers are not before us (the court)?\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The bench, which included justices AS Bopanna and V Ramasubramanian, pointed out that while the bunch three petitions were filed before it by lawyers with different kinds of prayers, no farmers\u2019 union or representative is a party to the hearings.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The court issued notices on the petitions but it underscored the need to give an audience to the farmers\u2019 representatives for a suitable adjudication of the issues, which ranged from clearing the road blockades to directing the government to ensure the farmers\u2019 demands are met.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Responding, the SG said that he was aware that the Bharatiya Kisan Union (BKU) was at the forefront of the protests and that his office would be sharing the contact details of their leaders so that they can be heard tomorrow.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
At this, the CJI told Mehta: \u201cTentatively, we will form a committee comprising representatives of the Bhartiya Kisan Union, the government, and other farmers\u2019 organisation from other parts of India because this will soon become a national issue. So, we will have other organisations from other parts of the country too.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
One of the petitioners cited the need to move the farmers to a designated spot and clear the roads in the backdrop of the Supreme Court\u2019s judgment in the Shaheen Bagh case wherein it was held that public roads cannot be blocked indefinitely by protestors. The Shaheen Bagh protest was against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act .<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The bench, however, said no order can be passed without the court hearing the other side. \u201cWhat were the number of people in Shaheen Bagh? How many blocked the road? Will the numbers not matter? Who will take the responsibility? There cannot be any precedent in a law-and-order situation,\u201d it added.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Delhi government\u2019s standing counsel Rahul Mehra also appeared in the case. While he questioned the petitioners for filing half-baked public interest litigations (PILs), Mehra said that it was very important that some urgent steps are taken by the Centre given the fact that farmers have been compelled to protest in the open in a cold winter.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
At this, SG Mehta retorted: \u201cMr Mehra seems to be appearing for some union and not a government. Which union are you appearing for, Mr Mehra?\u201d This triggered a sharp response from Mehra, who said he can also comment on why and for whom Mehta was appearing in the matter.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The bench asked the two lawyers to refrain from personal comments and fixed the matter for a hearing on Thursday, pointing out the court will be on a winter break after Friday. Senior advocate Harish Salve is also expected to appear in this matter on Thursday for a new petition or application.<\/p>\n