New Delhi,
The Supreme Court on Thursday reinstated the PIL rejected against 3 new agricultural laws made by the Center. This petition said that Parliament does not have the right to enact such a law because 'agriculture' is a state subject in the Constitution. On 12 October, a bench headed by Chief Justice SA Bobde issued notice to the Center on other petitions challenging these 3 controversial laws and sought its response in 4 weeks. However, the bench rejected the PIL of an advocate and asked them to go to the High Court. The lawyer claimed on Thursday that he could not argue in his case on the last date of hearing, to which the bench said, "We will restore it and your case will be put up for consideration after 2 weeks". During the hearing through the video conference, the petitioning counsel requested for reinstatement of his plea and said, "If I could not appear in the court and argue myself, it would not be considered to be produced." The bench said that he remembers what happened in the case on the previous date. The bench said, "We discussed it. The point where we rejected it was that there is no reason for action right now. Earlier, the bench had decided to hear petitions of Manoj Jha, a Rajya Sabha member of the Rashtriya Janata Dal challenging the constitutional validity of these laws, Tiruchi Siva, a DMK Rajya Sabha member from Tamil Nadu and Rakesh Vaishnav of the Chhattisgarh Kisan Congress. The petitions have been requested to repeal these laws, alleging that these agricultural laws will put an end to the Agricultural Produce Market Committee system to ensure fair prices of agricultural products to farmers. The Public Interest Litigation states that this law is against Article 246 of the constitution because agriculture comes in the list of the state instead of the list of centers and hence Parliament does not have the right to make laws on the subject.
If you like this story, share it with a friend! We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our journalism free from government and corporate pressure
0 Comments