Farmers Movement Archive

Committee will proceed with or without protesting farmers: Supreme Court

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Wednesday told the protesting farmers’ unions that its committee, tasked to submit a report to the court after collating farmers’ views on the contentious agri laws, would proceed with or without their participation and strongly deprecated attempts to besmirch the reputation of members of the panel by branding them as biased. “If you do not want to appear before the committee, we won’t force you,” a bench of Chief Justice S A Bobde and Justices A S Bopanna and V Ramasubramanian said immediately after eight of the 40 farmers’ unions protesting at Singhu border for last 50 days informed the court, through their advocate Prasahant Bhushan, that they would neither take part in the proceedings before the apex court nor appear before the SC-appointed committee. While seeking response in two weeks from parties on filling the vacancy in the four-member committee caused by resignation of B S Mann, the CJI-led bench frowned upon the manner in which the expert members of the panel had been branded as biased by the protesting farmers’ unions, and questioned the credentials of the critics who had even cast aspersions on the court, suggesting it had some interest in selecting them as members of the committee. Other members of the committee are Parmod Kumar Joshi, agricultural economist, director for South Asia, International Food Policy Research Institute; Ashok Gulati, agricultural economist and former chairman of the Commission for Agricultural Costs and Prices; and Anil Ghanwat, president, Shetkari Sanghatana. Terming the members “most brilliant minds in the field of agriculture”, the bench said, “When the committee has no adjudication power, how can the members be biased and how will it affect the cause? We appointed the committee to hear farmers and stakeholders and give us a report as to which are the clauses that are causing problems. It is the Supreme Court which will adjudicate the validity of the laws.” It added, “There is no need to brand people and malign them like this. And on top of that, cast aspersions on the court? On the first day, we had told (Harish) Salve that this (farmers’ protest) is not a proper case for us to adjudicate. We should not entertain this issue at all. We entertained this in the interest of the public, including farmers. We stayed operation of the laws and appointed a committee. That committee does not have powers of adjudication. If you don’t want to appear, don’t appear, why do you brand people like this?” Advocate Ajay Choudhary, appearing for the All India Kisan Mahapanchayat, told the court that according to newspaper reports, the members had already expressed their views in favour of the farm laws and the protesting farmers felt that they were biased. The bench asked, “What do newspaper reports say? These members do not understand the subject? They are the most brilliant minds in agriculture today. They have a reputation which none of their critics have. They are experts of the field. How do you malign them just because they have expressed some opinion in the past?.” “In fact, Mann had asked for modification of the laws. So, can you say he was in favour of the laws? This has become almost a cultural thing now. Branding people whom you do not want and criticising people like this. We do not appreciate this,” the bench added.

The Times of India

2021-01-21

India