Rakesh Vaishnav vs Union of India - 2021 Supreme(SC) 262

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2021 Supreme(SC) 262

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SHARAD ARVIND BOBDE, CJI., A.S. BOPANNA, V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, JJ.
Rakesh Vaishnav & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
Union of India & Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition(s)(Civil) Nos. 1118 of 2020
Decided On : 12-01-2021

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. K. Parameshwar, AOR, Mr. V. Mukunda, Adv., Ms. A. Sregurupriya, Adv., Mr. Sukumar Pattjoshi, Sr. Adv., Mr. K.K.L. Gautam, Adv., Mr. Vijendra Kasana, Adv., Mr. A.K. Suman, Adv., Mr. Manoj Sharma, Adv., Mr. Sandeep Kumar Singh, Adv., Mr. Sanjeev Malhotra, AOR, Mr. Vivek K. Tankha, Sr. Adv., Mr. Varun Tankha, Adv., Mr. Sumeer Sodhi, AOR, Mr. Prashant Sivarajan, Adv., Mr. Ujjawal Anand Sharma, Adv., Ms. Jhanvi Dubey, Adv., Ms. Suditi Batra, Adv., Mr. Hussain Ali, Adv., Mr. P. Wilson, Sr. Adv., Mr. D. Kumanan, AOR, Mr. Richardson Wilson, Adv., Mr. M. Shoeb Alam, Adv., Ms. Fauzia Shakil, AOR, Mr. Manohar Lal Sharma, Petitioner-In-Person, Mr. Harish N. Salva, Sr. Adv., Mr. Deepak Goel, AOR, Mr. Kamal Kumar Pandey, Adv., Mr. Vipin Kumar, Adv., Ms. Madhuri Gupta, Adv., Petitioner-In-Person, Mr. Vikas Singh, Sr. Adv., Mr. Reepak Kansal, Adv., Ms. Deepieka Kalia, Adv., Mr. Arun Adlakha, Adv., Mr. Kuldeep Roy, Adv., Mr./Ms. Harisha S.R., AOR, Mr. Omprakash Ajitsingh Parihar, AOr, Mr. Dushyant Tiwari, Adv., Mr. Yudhvir Dalal, Adv., Mr. S. Muthukrishnan, Adv., Mr. S. Mahendran, AOR, Petitioner-In-Person.
For the Respondent: Mr. K.K. Venugopal, Ld. AG, Mr. Tushar Mehta, Ld. SG, Mr. K.M. Nataraj, Ld. ASG, Mr. Kanu Agrawal, Adv., Ms. Suhasini Sen, Adv., Mr. Chinmayee Chandra, Adv., Mr. Ankur Talwar, Adv., Ms. Vanshaja Shukla, Adv., Mr. Shyam Gopal, Adv., Mr. Raj Bahadur Yadav, AOR, Ms. Archana Pathak Dave, AOR, Mr. Ajay Choudhary, AOR, Mr. Chirag M. Shroff, AOR, Mr. Tushar Mehta, Ld. SG, Ms. Garima Prashad, AOR, Mr. Subodh Kumar Pathak, Adv., Mr. P. Chidambaram, Sr. Adv., Mr. Atul Nanda, Ag. Punjab, Ms. Uttara Babbar, AOR, Ms. Bhavana Duhoon, Adv., Mr. Manan Bansal, Adv., Mr. B.V. Balaram Das, AOR, Mr. Prashant Bhushan, AOR, (Not Joined VC), Mr. M.P. Devnath, AOR, Mr. Vivek Sharma, Adv., Mr. Abhishek Anand, Adv., Mr. Abir Roy, Adv., Mr. Ishaan Saran, Adv., Mr. Vivek Pandey, Adv., Mr. P.S. Narsimha, Sr. Adv., Mr. Ekansh Mishra, AOR, Ms. Swati Vaibhav, AOR, Mr. V. Chitambaresh, Sr. Adv., Mr. Ravindra Sadanand Chingale, AOR, Mr. Ashish Sonawane, Adv., Mr. Rahul Mehra, Adv., Mr. Chirag M. Shroff, AOR, Ms. Abhilasha Bharti, Adv., Mr. Sushant Dogra, Adv., Mr. A.P. Singh, Adv., Mr. V.P. Singh, Adv., Ms. Geeta Singh, Adv., Ms. Richa Singh, Adv., Mr. Sharwan Kumar Goyal, Adv., Mr. Sadashiv, AOR, Mrs. Revathy Raghavan, AOR, Mr. Ajay Bansal Adv. AAG, Haryana, Mr. Gaurav Yadava, Adv., Mr. Sanjay Kumar Visen, AOR, Mr. Tushar Mehta, Ld. SG, Mr. Anil Grover, Sr. AAG, Ms. Noopur Singhal, Adv., Mr. Rahul Khurana, Adv., Mr. Satish Kumar, Adv., Mr. Sanjay Kumar Visen, AOR, Mr. V. Shekhar, Sr. Adv., Mr. Rajeev Kumar Dubey, Adv., Ms. Sheetal Rajput, Adv., Mr. Ashiwan Mishra, Adv., Mr. Kamlendra Mishra, AOR, Mr. Sridhar Potaraju, Adv., Mr. Gaichangpou Gangmei, Adv., Mr. Mukunda Rao, Adv., Ms. Shiwani Tushir, Adv., Ms. Ushasri, Adv., Mr. Vishnu Tulashi Menon, Adv.

Headnote:
Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 32 – Farmers’ Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) Act, 2020 – Essential Commodities (Amendment) Act, 2020 – Farmers (Empowerment and Protection) Agreement on Price Assurance and Farm Services Act, 2020 – Constitutional Validity of Farm Laws – Court have before us, three categories of petitions, all revolving around the validity or otherwise of three laws namely: (1) Farmers’ Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) Act, 2020; (2) Essential Commodities (Amendment) Act, 2020; and (3) Farmers (Empowerment and Protection) Agreement on Price Assurance and Farm Services Act, 2020, and the protest by farmers against these laws – One category of petitions challenge constitutional validity of the farm laws – Included within this category of petitions, is a petition under Article 32 challenging validity of Constitution (Third Amendment) Act, 1954, by which Entry 33 was substituted in List III (concurrent list) in Seventh Schedule of Constitution, enabling Central Government also to legislate on a subject which was otherwise in State List – Another category of petitions are those which support the farm laws on ground that they are constitutionally valid and also beneficial to farmers – Third category of petitions are those filed by individuals who are residents of National Capital Territory of Delhi as well as neighbouring States, claiming that agitation by farmers in peripheries of Delhi and consequent blockade of roads/highways leading to Delhi, infringes fundamental rights of other citizens to move freely throughout territories of India and their right to carry on trade and business – Held, some of farmers’ bodies who are opposing Farm Laws and who are represented before court through counsel, have agreed to go before Committee. senior counsel representing one section of farmers from Tamil Nadu welcomed the proposal to stay the implementation of Laws and the constitution of Committee and stated that his client would go before Committee – Similarly, Mr. A.P. Singh, learned counsel appearing for Bhartiya Kisan Union [BHANU] also submitted that representatives of Union will participate in negotiations. – He even went to the extent of saying that elders, women and children will be dissuaded from being there at the site of protest. – Counsel for Kisan Maha Panchayat, submitted that farmers from Rajasthan, who are protesting at border of Rajasthan, are willing to appear before Committee and air their grievances – Court deem it fit to pass following interim Order, with hope and expectation that both parties will take this in the right spirit and attempt to arrive at a fair, equitable and just solution to problems – Implementation of three farm laws (1) Farmers’ Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) Act, 2020; (2) Essential Commodities (Amendment) Act, 2020; and (3) Farmers (Empowerment and Protection) Agreement on Price Assurance and Farm Services Act, 2020, shall stand stayed until further orders – As a consequence, to Minimum Support Price System in existence before enactment of Farm Laws shall be maintained until further orders. – In addition, farmers’ land holdings shall be protected, i.e., no farmer shall be dispossessed or deprived of his title as a result of any action taken under Farm Laws. – A Committee comprising of (1) Shri Bhupinder Singh Mann, National President, Bhartiya Kisan Union and All India Kisan Coordination Committee; (2) Dr. Parmod Kumar Joshi, Agricultural Economist, Director for South Asia, International Food Policy Research Institute; (3) Shri Ashok Gulati, Agricultural Economist and Former Chairman of Commission for Agricultural Costs and Prices; and (4) Shri Anil Ghanwat, President, Shetkari Sanghatana, is constituted for purpose of listening to grievances of farmers relating to farm laws and views of Government and to make recommendations. – Committee shall be provided a place as well as Secretarial assistance at Delhi by the Government. – All expenses for Committee to hold sittings at Delhi or anywhere else shall be borne by Central Government. – Representatives of all farmers’ bodies, whether they are holding a protest or not and whether they support or oppose the laws shall participate in deliberations of the Committee and put forth their view points. – Committee shall, upon hearing Government as well as representatives of farmers’ bodies, and other stakeholders, submit a Report before this Court containing its recommendations. – This shall be done within two months from date of its first sitting. – First sitting shall be held within ten days from today – Order Accordingly

ORDER :

1. Applications for impleadment and intervention are allowed.

2. We have before us, three categories of petitions, all revolving around the validity or otherwise of three laws namely: (1) Farmers’ Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) Act, 2020; (2) Essential Commodities (Amendment) Act, 2020; and (3) Farmers (Empowerment and Protection) Agreement on Price Assurance and Farm Services Act, 2020, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘farm laws’), and the protest by farmers against these laws.

3. One category of petitions challenge the constitutional validity of the farm laws. Included within this category of petitions, is a petition under Article 32 challenging the validity of the Constitution (Third Amendment) Act, 1954, by which Entry 33 was substituted in List III (concurrent list) in the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution, enabling the Central Government also to legislate on a subject which was otherwise in the State List.

4. Another category of petitions are those which support the farm laws on the ground that they are constitutionally valid and also beneficial to the farmers. The third category of petitions are those filed by individuals who are residents of the National Capital Territory of Delhi as well as the neighbouring States, claiming that the agitation by farmers in the peripheries of Delhi and the consequent blockade of roads/highways leading to Delhi, infringes the fundamental rights of other citizens to move freely throughout the territories of India and their right to carry on trade and business.

5. Though several rounds of negotiations have taken place between the Government of India and the farmers’ bodies, no solution seems to be in sight. The situation on ground is: (i) that senior citizens, women and children are at site, exposing themselves to serious health hazards posed by cold and covid; (ii) that a few deaths have taken place, though not out of any violence, but either out of illness or by way of suicide.

6. Laudably, the farmers have so far carried on the agitation peacefully and without any untoward incident. But it was pointed out in the course of hearing that a few persons who are not farmers have also joined, with a view to show solidarity with the farmers. An apprehension was expressed that the possibility of some persons creating trouble cannot be entirely ruled out. In fact, a specific averment is made in an intervention application filed by one Indian Kisan Union, in I.A. No.3324/2021 in W.P.(C) No.1441/2020 that an organisation by name “Sikhs for Justice”, which is banned for anti-India secessionist movement is financing the agitation. This averment is supported by the learned Attorney General also.

7. A few farmers’ bodies who are now protesting, have engaged a team of lawyers comprising of Shri Dushyant Dave, Shri Colin Gonsalves, Shri H.S. Phoolka and Shri Prashant Bhushan to represent their cause. When Shri K.K. Venugopal, learned Attorney General submitted that there are reports that the farmers bodies may take out a tractor rally on January 26, 2021, disrupting the Republic Day Parade and celebrations, the same was stoutly denied by Shri Dushyant Dave, learned senior counsel appearing for a few of the farmers’ bodies on the ground that at least one member of the family of each of the farmers from Punjab is in the Army and that they would not disrupt the Republic Day celebrations. However, today this team of lawyers is absent.

8. Be that as it may, the negotiations between the farmers’ bodies and the Government have not yielded any result so far. Therefore, we are of the view that the constitution of a Committee of experts in the field of agriculture to negotiate between the farmers’ bodies and the Government of India may create a congenial atmosphere and improve the trust and confidence of the farmers. We are also of the view that a stay of implementation of all the three farm laws for the present, may assuage the hurt feelings of the farmers and encourage them to come t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document