Farmers Movement Archive

Why protest when laws kept in abeyance, SC asks farm unions

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday questioned the rationale behind farmers continuing their protests, including blocking of national highways, when none of the three contentious agricultural laws are in force as all have been kept in abeyance for 18 months in January by the court after an assurance from the government to that effect. A bench of Justices A M Khanwilkar and CT Ravikumar said, "Why is the protest when the three laws are not in force at all? It has been kept in abeyance by the court. There is a stay. The government is also bound by the law enacted by Parliament, isn't it?" This observation came on a petition filed by Kisan Mahapanchayat, which has sought permission to hold protests at Jantar Mantar near Parliament against the farm laws. It questioned the petitioner for moving the Rajasthan HC challenging the validity of the farm laws and simultaneously requesting for permission to protest. The bench said, "Once a party goes to court challenging an Act or action of the executive, then the matter is subjudice before the court. How can the same party say irrespective of filing the petition, it still has a right to protest. Protest against whom? You can move the court and request for deciding the matter expeditiously. No one else can decide the validity of an Act or executive action except the court. It is not for anyone else to judge. It is only the court which can do it. We want to know how a party which has moved the court, can still resort to protest." Attorney general K K Venugopal said, "The government has made it very clear that it is not going to withdraw the three laws. Therefore, the only choice before them (the farmers) is to take forward their challenge to the three laws before the constitutional court." Venugopal and solicitor general Tushar Mehta supported the court's view but reiterated that the government is firm that the three agricultural laws - The Farmers’ Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) Act, The Essential Commodities (Amendment) Act and The Farmers (Empowerment and Protection) Agreement on Price Assurance and Farm Services Act - will not be withdrawn and that the government would await the outcome of the bunch of petitions challenging the validity of the enactments. The AG said, "The court is right. No one can be allowed to ride two horses at the same time... Once he has chosen his forum he cannot indulge in both - challenge the legislation in court and go on protesting on the road. If he feels strongly that he would succeed in getting the legislation invalidated, then he should await the decision of the court." Mehta said, "Once the matter is before the highest constitutional court, nobody can be on the streets on the same issue. They must trust the court." At the commencement of hearing, Kisan Mahapanchayat's counsel Ajay Chaoudhary informed the court that his client organisation and its members have broken away from the road blocking protests by farmers organisations after the massive violence and invasion of Red Fort by protesters during the tractor rally violence on Republic day. However, the SC pointed out that their petition challenging the validity of the three farm laws is still pending before the Jaipur Bench of the Rajasthan High Court. It decided to transfer the writ petition to itself and posted it for hearing along with its petition seeking permission to hold protests at Jantar Mantar for hearing on October 21. Justice Khanwilkar-led bench said, "Person who questions the executive order or legislation enacted, if he has already approached the court, why should that person be permitted by the executive to protest, even if it is otherwise permissible. We would like your (AG's) assistance on this question." "The main question that we will decide would be - When the matter is subjudice, how can you protest about that very issue? That is a legal question which we will decide. After that we will decide about giving permission for the protest." On January 12, the SC hearing a bunch of petitions had put the implementation of the three farm laws on abeyance as the Centre had agreed not to implement it in the hope of resolving the farmers' grievances through negotiations. Appearing for eight agitating farmers unions, senior advocates Dushyant Dave, H S Phoolka, Colin Gonsalves and Prashant Bhushan had welcomed the SC decision to keep the farm laws in abeyance but had said that they would get back to the court on the issue of willingness of farmer organisations to participate in the proceedings relating to determination of validity of the three laws. The then CJI S A Bobde had made a personal appeal to the farmers unions to withdraw their protests and the SC had set up a committee to take views of farmers across the country on the contentious farm laws. Later, the agitating farmers had refused to call off the protests and Bhushan had told the court that "What their apprehension is - This is a way of putting pressure democratically on the government through agitations and protests. They (the farmers) fear that if they get up and go because the Supreme Court has stayed the three laws, then the pressure on government will dissipate."

The Times of India

2021-10-05

India