The Wire spoke to the Congress leader about the legal and legislative consequences of the Union government's decision to repeal the three farm laws.
On November 19, Prime Minister Narendra Modi, in an address to the nation announced that the three contentious farm laws introduced in 2020 will be repealed. The announcement brings to a close a farmers’ protest that has lasted over a year. Thousands of farmers had camped at Delhi’s borders since last November and dozens died from heat, cold and COVID-19.
The Wire spoke with Abhishek Manu Singhvi, eminent jurist, member of parliament and Congress’s national spokesperson, about the legal and legislative consequences of this decision.
Singhvi said he unequivocally supported the action and the decision was “better late than never”. However, the biggest question remains why could this not have been done earlier, he said. A statement is only a declaration of interest, he added. The prime minister now has to pass this in parliament – considering that ordinances are being passed “left, right and centre” to extend tenures for organisational heads, why not this?
Most importantly, he further said, the reaction of the farmer community shows that a huge trust deficit exists. Farmers are asking questions about minimum support price (MSP), doubling of farmers’ income and many other issues. There is a larger issue of farmers’ welfare. The issue has got embroiled into unwarranted contexts – the kind of human rights violations that have occurred against farmers, has given rise to tremendous angst. It is imperative that the government looks to extend a healing touch, and not just a withdrawal of the laws.
With the laws being repealed, it is now back to laws that already exist in each state, he said. Many states had passed further laws to resist these farm laws. Within that, the states accepted parts of the three farm laws while striking down elements like a lack of MSP. Those state laws will now continue. In fact, he pointed out that these farm laws were passed by misusing the inter-state laws. A greater alacrity from the Supreme Court would have checked this error sooner.
Farmers block a road at Singhu border during their ‘chakka jam near New Delhi, February 6, 2021. Photo: PTI
Importantly, though, he pointed to the fact that the construction of these kinds of laws should always be borne out of on-the-ground experience. A state like Bihar had already attempted to put in place a mechanism very similar to the one suggested in the three farm laws, and to disastrous effect. None of that data was either studied or taken on board.
When asked about the timing of this announcement, Singhvi said the decision is clearly “political”. The point is: where trust deficit and politics intersect, you cannot press a button and expect things to automatically correct. Everything will be taken with a bucket of salt. There is also a broader debate on how the legislative agenda has been overcome by politicisation. Since MPs have no right to initiate laws, a lot of the priority legislation gets ignored because politics takes over, which are not merit-based.
The Wire also asked him about the takeaways for the judiciary.
The Supreme Court in the Shaheen Bagh case and the farmers’ protests case observed that grievances should be raised either in court or legislature than through public protests. The decisions to repeal the farm laws, and to freeze the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA) seem to point to a level of disconnectedness by the apex court.
The jurist observed that on the role of the judiciary, there were two fronts – on the one hand, the court had iterated that it was not concerned with the merits of the case and is only looking at the stoppage of movement and blockage of roads. This may not be an invalid sentiment, he felt. On the other hand, on questions raised regarding protests, he said that no court in the country can inhibit my right to protest under the constitution. “Yes, if I exceed reasonable restrictions, I can be stopped. But till then you cannot,” he said.
There is also the crucial question around pending cases against farmers. On that account, Singhvi said nothing happens automatically and the first thing the ruling government must do is to urgently repeal all cases against farmers en masse. These are the most deserving category because they are purely agitational cases and were often foisted on by the police.
SOURCE ; THE WIRE
Social media is bold.
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(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