New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday accepted the right of non-violent protests of the farmers, suggesting that the Center should at present suspend the implementation of these three controversial laws, as it seeks to remove this impasse as a 'fair and Is considering forming an independent committee. A bench of Chief Justice SA Bobde, Justice AS Bopanna and Justice V. Ramasubramanian said that it also believes that the right of farmers to protest is a violation of the fundamental rights of others to move freely and to obtain essential commodities. Should not do. The court said that the right to protest cannot mean blocking the entire city. The bench said that an order will be passed only after hearing all the parties including the farmers unions protesting about setting up a committee in this regard. The bench said that keeping the implementation (implementation) of these laws by the Center postponed will help in dialogue with the farmers. However, Attorney General KK Venugopal opposed this suggestion and said that farmers will not come forward to negotiate if the implementation of these laws is postponed. The apex court said that it is not asking the Center to stop implementing these laws, but is suggesting that these should be put on hold for the time being so that farmers can negotiate with the government. Worried about the situation of farmers. We are also Indians, but we are worried about the way things are taking shape. ”The bench said," They (farmers protesting) are not crowds. " The court said that it will pass the order after serving the notice on the opposing farmer unions and allow them to go to the vacation bench during the winter vacation. During the hearing of the case through video conferencing, the bench remarked that it considers the right of farmers to protest, but this right is the fundamental right of others to move freely and obtain essential commodities and other things. Do not encroach The bench said that the police and administration have been given the right to protect the fundamental rights of others from those who protest in democracy.
https://mitraspec.com?afmc=da&utm_campaign=da&utm_source=leaddyno&utm_medium=affiliate
Such laws related to contracts and transfer of powers - Price Assurance and Farmers (Empowerment and Protection) Agreement on Agricultural Services Act, 2020. Section 18 repeats the argument with 'good intentions'. Section 19 states: 'Hearing any dispute on which the authority to decide under this Act has been given to the Sub Divisional Authority or the Appellate Authority shall not be within the jurisdiction of any civil court and no court or authority shall prohibit any such act. Those who are or are to be made according to the powers given under this Act or the rules made in accordance with it. And if you feel that Article 19 of the Indian Constitution gives the right to speech and freedom of expression, peaceful association, freedom of movement, organization or association, then stop. Section 19 of this Act in its basic form also repeals Section 32 of the Constitution, which gives the right to constitutional treatment to the public. Article 32 is considered part of the basic structure of the Constitution. It is certainly not possible that the mainstream media (which is a strange name given to 70 per cent of the population and forums that have no connection with its questions) is unaware of the implications of these new agricultural laws for India's democracy. Do not cheat on any conflict of interest (in plural). These media are also corporations. Surveyors of India's largest corporation are also India's largest and wealthiest media owners. Among the people who are being named in the slogans being raised by the farmers deposited at the gateways of Delhi, one is of Ambani. Secondly, even at the lower levels, the gap between the Fourth State (the fourth pillar of democracy) and real estate has been lost for a long time. The mainstream media is so deeply engrossed with them that it is not possible for them to prefer the interests of the citizens (let alone the farmers) over the interests of the corporations. The game of defaming the farmers in their newspapers and channels in political reports is continuing and relentless - they are rich farmers, they are only farmers of Punjab, they are Khalistani, they are pretenders, they are Congress conspirators etc. (However, there are some wonderful and common exceptions.) However, editorials of big media take a different route and show crocodiles. His arguments are like this: In fact the government should have dealt with it better. These (agitators) are delusional people who are blindfolded. They should be explained about the intelligence of the economists and the Prime Minister of the government - who have made laws to benefit the farmers, which are so important for the farmers and for the country's economy. After saying this much, they insist on this: These laws are important and mandatory and should be implemented. An editorial in the Indian Express said, "The fault lies not in the reforms, but in the manner of passing agricultural laws and the lack of public relations strategy of the government or any such strategy." The Express is also concerned that this negligence will harm other good schemes, which, like these three agricultural laws, are necessary reforms to exploit the real potential of Indian agriculture. According to a Times of India editorial, the primary task before the government is to clear the misconceptions of farmers about the possible elimination of the minimum support price system. After all, the reform package of the center is an honest effort to increase private participation in agricultural trade. Expectations of doubling agricultural income are based on the success of these unchecked reforms… and such reforms will also correct harmful distortions in the Indian food market. '
The bench said, 'You cannot sit in protest for years without talking to the government. We have already said that we recognize your right to protest, but there must be a motive for protest. You need to talk to the government. ' The bench said that the committee will include experts like P. Sainath and representatives of government and farmer organizations, who will find a solution to the deadlock over these laws. The bench said, "We believe that farmers have the right to protest, but it should be non-violent." The court said that the motive of the protest will be achieved only when the farmers and the government negotiate and we want to provide this opportunity. As soon as the hearing of the case began, the bench clarified, "We will not decide on the validity of the law today." We will decide only on the issue of protests and uninterrupted traffic. ' The court is hearing petitions filed on the issues related to traffic movement due to farmers' movement on the borders of Delhi. In these petitions, it has been requested to remove the farmers from the borders of Delhi. The court had on Wednesday indicated that it could set up a committee to resolve the deadlock between farmers and the government protesting against Delhi's agitation against agricultural laws, as 'it could soon become a national issue' is.' The bench told Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, 'From your conversation it seems that the matter has not been made.' The bench also remarked that it is bound to fail. You are saying that we are ready for talks. To this, Mehta replied, "Yes, we are ready to talk to the farmers."
{With input from news agency language) 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