Tens of thousands of farmers will continue their protests against India’s new farm laws until they are repealed, rejecting the top court’s decision to keep them in abeyance and adding to Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s woes. The siege of a key roadway connecting the country’s capital where the farmers have been camping for the past two months will continue, protest leaders said, as will plans to march into the city later this month. A three-judge bench headed by the Chief Justice of India Sharad A. Bobde on Tuesday barred the implementation of the law until the court hears the matter and arrives at a judgment. It also set up a panel to mediate between the government and the protesters and submit a report to the court.
Farmer leaders, opposition and some of Modi’s allies fear the laws will lead to corporate control over agricultural production, processing, and markets and lower crop prices by removing government purchases causing losses to cultivators. While the government maintains that farmers are being misled and the new laws will lift curbs on purchases, remove middlemen and increase farmers income, the court’s decision to suspend the laws adds to its challenges. Modi had in his first term promised to double farmers’ incomes by 2022.
The court-appointed committee comprising Ashok Gulati, Pramod Kumar Joshi and farmer leaders Anil Ghanwat and Bhupinder Singh Mann, will hold its first meeting in 10 days and submit the report in 2 months.
Right to Protest
With the agitation refusing to die down, the court said the farmers’ right to protest cannot be stifled even as it urged protesters to return to their livelihood. It also ruled that the existing system of the government setting a minimum floor price for procurement of certain farm produce will continue and no farmer will be deprived of their land using the new laws.
“It is unusual for the Supreme Court to assume the role of a mediator and appoint a committee to facilitate dialog,” said Ashish Deep Verma, Managing Partner of law firm Vidhisastras Advocates & Solicitors. “But this is a rare case involving larger public interest that the court in its wisdom decided to deal with this situation judiciously.”
Tuesday’s order notes that the country’s Attorney General K.K. Venugopal had “opposed vehemently” the judges’ suggestion to stay the law citing a number of past verdicts saying the judiciary should refrain from interfering in acts of parliament. The court, however, ruled that it had the powers.