Farmers Movement Archive

Maharashtra introduces three farm bills

The Maharashtra government on Tuesday tabled its own farm bills with multiple changes, including the provision for minimum support price (MSP), compared to the three contentious laws of the Centre. The changes include mandatory minimum support price for farmers, licence for traders, recovery against cheating, punishment not less than three years and a fine of ₹5 lakh against the offenders. The three amendment bills introduced in the state assembly have been opened for people to give their suggestions in the next two months. All suggestions received will be examined and changes will be made by the departments concerned, if necessary. The bills will be reintroduced in the winter session of the state legislature for approval.Agriculture minister Dada Bhuse said, “The laws passed by the Centre have no provision for making MSP mandatory for the farmers, which we have decided to incorporate in our law. No agreement will be found valid if the price of produce is quoted less than MSP.”The decision was taken considering the demand from various outfits of the farmers for consultation before approving them in the state legislature, the state said. It was taken in the state cabinet meeting held on Tuesday morning. The amendment bills — Farmers (Empowerment and Protection) Agreement on Price Assurance and Farm Services Act, 2020, Farmers’ Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) Act, 2020 and Essential Commodities Act, 1955 – were introduced by Bhuse, marketing minister Balasaheb Patil and food and civil supplies minister Chhagan Bhujbal, respectively. “Farming agreement shall not be valid unless the price paid to farmer (against its produce) is equal to or greater than MSP,” states the amendment bill for Farmers (Empowerment and Protection) Agreement on Price Assurance and Farm Services Act, 2020.It stated that the farmer and sponsor (trader) can make a farming agreement below minimum support price with mutual consent for a maximum period of two years. The bill also allows farming agreement for crops where minimum support price is not declared, in which case, the farmer and sponsor (trader) may enter into an agreement with a mutually agreed price. As agriculture comes under the concurrent list, the bill also talks about a provision for power to the state to make rules.Bhuse urged people to give their suggestions so further changes can be made in the draft bills. The amendment in the Farmers’ Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) Act, 2020 stated, “No trader shall trade in any scheduled farmers’ produce unless such trader has a valid license of a competent authority.” It is against the provision of the central law that allows trade of agricultural produce having just a PAN card which was strongly opposed by the farmers’ outfits.State revenue minister Balsaheb Thorat said, “We all know how farmers are being cheated, therefore a law was needed to ensure they will get remuneration for their agricultural produce, if not, it can be recovered from the trader and the offenders also be punished.”The state has proposed to form a mechanism for grievance redressal in case of disputes in contrast with the provision made in the central law which says they can approach a sub-divisional magistrate (SDM), who is already overburdened with work in the existing system and has also no jurisdiction in these matters as it is revenue official post, said a senior official requesting anonymity. “In case of a dispute arising out of a transaction between the farmer and a trader, the parties may seek the solution by filing an application to the competent authority and appeal against the order of the competent authority to the appellate authority,” stated the bill.It has a provision for punishment of imprisonment of not less than three years and minimum fine of ₹5 lakh or both if a farmer is found to be harassed. It explained that the offence of harassment shall be treated to be committed where the trader does not make the payment to the farmer in accordance with the terms of agreement or within seven days from the date of receipt of delivery of goods, whichever is earlier.Besides, if both the parties failed to settle their dispute through reconciliation process, the authority can pass an order for recovery of the amount under the dispute with penalty and interest as it deems fit. “In cases where the sponsor (trader) fails to make payment of the amount due to the farmer, such a penalty may extend to one and half times of the due amount. In case the order is against the farmer for recovery of the amount due to the sponsor (trader) on account of any advance payment or cost of inputs as per term of farming agreement, such amount shall not exceed the actual cost incurred by the sponsor.”In the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, it has proposed an amendment for the state having the powers to regulate or prohibit the production, supply, distribution, imposing limits under extraordinary circumstances, which may include famine, price rise and natural calamity. The current law provides the power only to the Centre in this regard.“There were several flaws in the three farm laws passed by the Centre. Farmers’ outfits have been protesting these legislations for the past seven months. The situation may not have arisen if the Centre had taken farmers into confidence,” said the agriculture minister.

Hindustan Times

07-07-2021

Mumbai