Sign in

Farm stir fanned by vested interests: Govt

In its affidavit filed hours after Monday’s hearing, the government told the court that the three legislations are a result of two decades of deliberations and that the demand to repeal them in entirety is “neither justifiable nor acceptable.”

Published on: Jan 12, 2021, 03:27:00 IST
Share
Share via
  • facebook
  • twitter
  • linkedin
  • whatsapp
Copy link
  • copy link

he central government has in the Supreme Court blamed “vested interests” for instigating the ongoing farmers’ protests, maintaining that the recently enacted farm laws have in reality received “wide acceptance” throughout the country.

The government said the agitation being limited to just one place in the country was an evidence that majority of farmers were not only happy with the legislations but found these legislations to be progressive and in their interest. (Representative Image) (PTI)
The government said the agitation being limited to just one place in the country was an evidence that majority of farmers were not only happy with the legislations but found these legislations to be progressive and in their interest. (Representative Image) (PTI)

In its affidavit filed hours after Monday’s hearing, the government told the court that the three legislations are a result of two decades of deliberations and that the demand to repeal them in entirety is “neither justifiable nor acceptable.”

“The Acts have received wide acceptance throughout the country and, therefore, some farmers and others objecting to the law had put a condition of its repeal, is neither justifiable nor acceptable,” said the affidavit, filed by the agriculture ministry.

The three Acts in question are The Farmers’ Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) Act, The Farmers (Empowerment and Protection) Agreement of Price Assurance and Farm Services Act, and The Essential Commodities (Amendment) Act.

Together, the laws will allow big corporations and global supermarket chains to buy directly from farmers, bypassing decades-old regulations. Farmers say the reforms would make them vulnerable to exploitation by big corporations and erode the government’s procurement system.

The government submitted that the affidavit was prepared and filed “hurriedly” after the conclusion of the hearing on Monday during which the SC bench, led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) SA Bobde, expressed its inclination to suspend the operation of the laws while questioning the consultation process and their efficacy.

“This affidavit is filed only to remove a deliberate wrong perception created systematically by non-farmer elements present at the protest site and using media/social media, and to apprise this Hon’ble Court with true facts,” said the government.

It claimed that “the farmers of the nation are happy” as they are given an additional option over and above the existing ones. “The agitation by/in the name of some of the farmers may, therefore, not be treated as reflection on the validity of the law or its efficacy and usefulness for the farmer community,” said the affidavit.

The government said the agitation being limited to just one place in the country was an evidence that majority of farmers were not only happy with the legislations but found these legislations to be progressive and in their interest.

The affidavit said that the government wished to also dispel “the erroneous notion that the protestors have peddled that the Central Government and the Parliament never had any consultative process or examination of issues by any Committee before passing of the laws.”

Starting with the constitution of the Expert Committee in December 2000 to review the system of agricultural marketing and to recommend measures to make the system more efficient and competitive, the government adduced a brief history of various committees subsequently formed, recommendations made and consultations done with the states to augment its argument on adequate deliberation. “Government of India has been, thus, actively and intensively engaging with the States for about two decades to achieve the aforesaid objectives of reforms to provide accessible and barrier free market system for better price realization but states either showed reluctance to adopt the reforms...or made partial or cosmetic reforms,” asserted the affidavit.

“The legislations are not hurriedly made but is a result of two decades of deliberations. The farmers of the nation are happy as they are given an additional option over and above the existing and, therefore, no vested right is taken away,” it said.

According to the affidavit, talks with the farmers failed only because they insisted on repealing the laws as a precondition for talks while the government was ready to allay their apprehensions about the new laws by discussing it clause by clause.

“As a responsible Government, it has taken all conceivable steps to ensure that specific grievances of some farmers who are agitating are discussed and sorted out so far as possible...,” read the affidavit.

  • Utkarsh Anand
    ABOUT THE AUTHOR
    Utkarsh Anand

    Utkarsh Anand is the National Legal Editor at Hindustan Times, where he leads the newspaper's coverage of the Supreme Court, constitutional law, the judiciary and the Union law ministry. He joined Hindustan Times in 2020 after stints at Press Trust of India (PTI), The Indian Express and CNN-News18, and has over two decades of experience reporting on law, governance and public policy. His work has focussed on some of India's most consequential constitutional and legal developments, including the Supreme Court's judgments on Article 370, marriage equality, decriminalisation of homosexuality, the Babri Masjid dispute, electoral reforms and judicial appointments. He specialises in making complex legal proceedings and judgments accessible to readers while examining their wider social and political impact. Beyond daily reportage, Utkarsh has led investigative projects and enterprise reporting that have shaped public debate and prompted institutional responses. His work has received several journalism awards, including the Ramnath Goenka Excellence in Journalism Award. As National Legal Editor, he has also played a key role in expanding Hindustan Times' legal journalism footprint, mentoring reporters and strengthening coverage across platforms. A Chevening South Asia Journalism Programme Fellow, Utkarsh regularly writes analyses on the judiciary and constitutional issues, and his reporting is widely followed by lawyers, judges, policymakers, academics and readers seeking clarity on India's evolving legal landscape.Read More