Back
2006(4) ALL MR 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
KSHITIJ R. VYAS; C.J. & Dr. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.
The Secretary, All India Biodynamic and Organic Farming Association - Petitioner
Versus
The Principal Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra & Ors. - Respondent
Public Interest Litigation No.164 of 2004
Decided on 5th May, 2006.
Advocates appeared
Mr. S. P. ANAND, Petitioner appearing in person.
Me. RAVI KADAM, Advocate General, with Mr. A. A. KUMBHAKONI, Associate Advocate General, for the State.
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950 - Article 21 Right to life Suicide by farmers in Andhra Pradesh Public Interest Litigation Measures to alleviate indebtedness directed to be implemented with vigour The scheme so initiated not be terminated in between Benefit of scheme must reach all. The State Government has come out with a comprehensive package that aims to (i) Release farmers from the clutches of unscrupulous money lenders; (ii) Put an end to indebtedness; (iii) Arrange for capital from Banks to improve farm productivity; (iv) Bring desirable changes in cropping patterns; (v) Encourage organic farming; (vi) Encourage measures to reduce the cost of cultivation; (vii) Provide financial assistance to and encourage community marriages with the help of social organizations; and (viii) Encourage value addition by supporting co-operative processing units.
These measures shall now be adopted and implemented with vigour and expedition. This should not remain an ornate scheme, impressive on paper but deficient in implementation. The State shall take all measures to ensure that benefits reach those for whom they are intended.
The Constitution guarantees the right to life and to personal liberty. The values which underline Article 21 of the Constitution are seriously eroded by deaths on such a systemic scale, as the facts before the Court in relation to the State of Maharashtra demonstrate.
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950 - Articles 21, 38 and 226 Agriculture Minimum support prices Fixation of Price fixation, a part of legislative function Principles of natural justice not attracted to such an activity No direction relating to fixation of minimum support prices can be issued by Court. The evolution of economic discourse in regarding development in terms of the protection of basic human rights and freedom must unfuse the constitutional discourse as Courts expound and interpret the Constitution. The values which are enshrined in the Directive Principles of State Policy, must, therefore, infuse and guide the interpretation of the fundamental rights. Human rights of a civil and political nature on the one hand and human rights with an economic, social and cultural content on the other hand, are facets of one integrated doctrine. The object of these fundamental freedoms is to truly impart to the human personality all components of existence that make life meaningful. That is the mandate of Article 21. The Court which interprets the Constitution must regard the achievement of basic human freedoms having an economic, social and cultural context as being as important as the protection of civil and political freedom. It is only when both sets of human rights are realised, that an integrated human personality can exist. It is only when both sets of human rights are realised, that society can exist as a cohesive and stable whole.
Principles of natural justice would not be attracted to such an activity which has a legislative flavour. Equally, it would be impermissible for the Court to issue any directions in the nature of mandamus commanding the executive, as the delegate of the legislature, to determine prices of a particular order or nature.
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950 - Articles 21 and 226 Public Interest Litigation Incident of suicides on a large scale by farmers Constitutional question beyond an emotive appeal Right to life and personal liberty Litigation filed in public interest Maintainable Constitutional foundation being right to life under Article 21 cannot be questioned. Agriculture is a source of livelihood for an overwhelming part of our society. The occurrence of suicide on such a large scale by cultivators of the soil raises constitutional questions that travel beyond an emotive appeal. The Constitution guarantees the right to life and to personal liberty. The values which underlie Article 21 of the Constitution are seriously eroded by deaths on such a systemic scale, as the facts before the Court in relation to the State of Maharashtra demonstrate. The social existence of the cultivator and his economic survival are regulated by several important decisions which the State and its regulatory agencies adopt. The suicides that have occurred are as much due to the failure of social and economic development to reach the poor, the landless and those on the margins of existence as it is due to natural calamities. The consequences of natural causes become stark when development policy does not provide safety nets and buffers to absorb them. Legislation enacted by the State on matters as diverse as land reforms, agricultural indebtedness, consolidation and prevention of the fragmentation of holdings and remunerative prices that enable farmers to meet the cost of cultivation, has a fundamental bearing on both the existence and quality of the life of the rural populace. Hence, the maintainability of these proceedings and the constitutional foundation for the invocation of the jurisdiction of the Court cannot be questioned. The foundation is the right to life under Article 21.
2. On 11th January, 2005, the Chief Secretary to the State Government stated before the Court on affidavit that between 1st January, 2004 and 31st December, 2004, there were reports of 294 cases of suicide by farmers. Of them, the largest number - 109, was from· Yavatmal, followed by 39 in Buldhana, 37 in Washim and 35 in Amravati. The State Government informed the Court that as and when such cases are brought to the notice of Divisional Commissioners, an enquiry is carried out by Tahsildars or by Sub-Divisional Officers to ascertain the causes for suicide: if it is established that the indebtedness of the farmer either through formal or inform sources is one of the primary factors of suicide the case is treated as one of suicide related to agricultural indebtedness. The Government stated that it has no formal scheme for providing assistance to families of farmers who have committed suicide, but assistance to the extent of Rs.1 lakh is provided on a discretionary basis through the Chief Minister's Relief Fund. The criterion that is applied is that agricultural indebtedness should be established as the cause for suicide. 71 out of 294 cases were accordingly reported to have been found eligible for assistance from the Chief Minister's Relief Fund. In November, 2004, the State Government commissioned the services of the Indira Gandhi Institute for Development Research, Mumbai, to conduct a study on the problem in Maharashtra. The efforts which were being undertaken to promote the interest of the agricultural sector were stated to be as follows :
"The State Government and the Government of India are, continuously, concentrating their efforts in the direction of making available good quality inputs like seeds, fertilisers, pesticides, promoting organic farming, making available timely and adequate credit, power availability and methods of optimising existing irrigation facilities by way of sprinklers, drip irrigation and other water conservation activities followed by regular agricultural research and extension activities."
The State Government informed the Court that it has taken a decision to remit interest on crop loans of farmers who had availed of loans during Rabi 2003 and Kharif 2004 to the extent of Rs.570 crores. Farmers who had suffered losses exceeding 50% during Kharif 2004 in Vidarbha and Marathwada regions had been granted compensation to the extent of approximately Rs.84 crores.
3. By an order dated 12th January, 2005, the District Judges of Beed, Jalna and Parbhani were directed to submit report before the Court. The reports submitted by the District Judges as well as the report of the Tata Institute of Social Sciences were considered by the Court on 16th February, 2005. Prakash Gopalrao Pohare filed an application for intervention with a list containing information relating to farmers who had committed suicide in the State. The list showed that from 1st March, 2001 to January, 2005, 371 farmers had committed suicide. The State Government was directed to reinvestigate the matter and to submit its report. A further affidavit was filed by the Chief Secretary on 10th March, 2005 informing the Court that the list submitted by the intervenor together with the reports of the District Judges had been forwarded to the Commissioners in the concerned Division
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
