New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday (January 12) stayed the implementation of new agricultural laws till further orders. The top court also decided to set up a 4-member committee to resolve the impasse between the Centre and the farmers’ unions protesting at Delhi borders. Amid the apex court order, the question arises which wing of the government has the supreme power to make laws? Will the decision on laws passed by Parliament be taken on the road? The DNA report will try to find answers to these questions.
The 5 key points of the Supreme Court order are:
1. The implementation of the three agricultural laws has stayed.
2. A four-member committee has been formed to report to the Supreme Court.
3. Any farmer organization, whether it is against the law or in its support, can approach the committee and submit its points.
4. The committee will also hear the Central government’s stand on new agricultural laws.
5. The committee has been asked to hold its first meeting will in 10 days and submit its report after two months.
The committee to look into the farmers’ grievances against the three laws has four members including BKU president Bhupinder Singh Mann, Shetkeri Sangathana, Maharashtra president Anil Ghanwat, Pramod Kumar Joshi, director for South Asia, International Food Policy Research Institute, and agriculture economist Ashok Gulati.
The first name is Bhupinder Singh Mann, who is the National President of the Bharatiya Kisan Union (BKU). A faction of farmers believes that he is already in the favour of new agricultural laws.
About Dr Pramod Kumar Joshi, Director for South Asia, International Food Policy Research Institute, farmers’ organizations opine that he wrote a letter to the government in support of the new laws.
The third member is agriculture economist Ashok Gulati. The farmer leaders say that Ashok Gulati headed the committee that recommended the implementation of new agricultural laws.
The fourth member is Shetkeri Sangathana, Maharashtra president Anil Ghanwat, who is known to be a farmer leader, but he too supported the new agricultural laws.
The committee, therefore, has two members who will put forth the issues raised by farmers while the other two members are agricultural economists. The farmers, however, have raised objections against the three names.
The farmer unions have refused to submit their stand before this committee as they feel that the panel is dominated by people from the government. They have declared that their movement will continue.
If we assess the current situation, then we feel that the overdose of democracy can be harmful to the health of our country. If this happens, the advocates of democracy might also justify the violence. When farmers are neither listening to Parliament nor to the apex court, what is the future of this movement?