Maharashtra government stays its order on farm laws
The Maharashtra Vikas Aghadi (MVA) government, led by chief minister (CM) Uddhav Thackeray, stayed the implementation of recently-enacted farm laws in Maharashtra, on Wednesday. A Cabinet sub-committee has been appointed to deliberate on the legislations which many have described as anti-farmer and against which Congress and Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) stand staunchly opposed.
On Wednesday, the Cabinet discussed the issue of the farm laws, which were passed in Parliament on September 17, and decided to take farmer organisations and other stakeholders into confidence. A sub-committee will look into concerns and questions raised by various groups. Minority affairs minister and NCP leader Nawab Malik said the committee will also look at the labour laws passed by the Centre. “The sub-committee will look into all the contentious issues, including the minimum support price (MSP), the fate of agricultural produce market committes (APMCs), possible hoarding of farm produce; and study the options with the state government. I think the state government under article 254 (2) of the Constitution has the right to have its own regulations while implementing the laws. The CM has assured us of a decision in the interest of farmers after studying all aspects related to the issue,” said public works department minister and former chief minister Ashok Chavan.
An NCP minister said, “Law and judiciary department also apprised the Cabinet about the powers with the state to enact separate laws to negate the [farm] laws and ensure farmers get a fair price for their produce and APMCs do not lose their existence due to these laws. The state government has decided to utilise every possible option to ensure farmers’ rights are safeguarded.”
Earlier in the day, a high voltage drama unfolded within the Maharashtra Vikas Aghadi (MVA) alliance after Congress pressed for a withdrawal of the notification issued by the cooperation and marketing department led by Nationalist Congress Party. The notification, issued on August 10 by director of marketing Satish Soni, directed local authorities governing APMCs to implement the contentious farm ordinances, that were recently enacted as the Farmers’ Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) Act, 2020.
“As per the provisions in the ordinances, the farmers are free to market their produce at field, factory, warehouse or cold storage without any hindrance and without any market fee applicable under APMC Act. Any other fee or charges applicable under APMC Act cannot be charged now as per the provisions made in the ordinances. The law and judiciary department has vetted the ordinances and validated its applicability. Though the existence of the APMCs has not been affected by promulgation of the ordinance, the farmers will have a parallel mechanism to get fair prices for their produce. The market committees are expected to implement the provisions in the ordinances effectively,” the circular stated.
Congress and NCP have staunchly opposed the farm laws and their implementation in Maharashtra. However, the circular stirred up a controversy as Shiv Sena had not taken a stand on the issue. Demanding a withdrawal of the circular, Congress threatened to boycott the Cabinet meeting scheduled for Wednesday afternoon.
The state cooperation and marketing minister Balasaheb Patil conducted a hearing on September 30 (today) and passed an order of interim stay on the implementation of the notification.
Patil had directed the marketing department to withdraw the circular with immediate effect, but no action was taken. Maharashtra Congress chief and revenue minister Balasaheb Thorat had also written a letter on September 27, to the cooperation and marketing department, for the withdrawal of the circular. Thorat has said all ruling parties in the state are against the newly-enacted farm laws and the decision to not implement them would be taken collectively after due deliberation. Last week, deputy chief minister and NCP leader Ajit Pawar had also said the farm laws would not be implemented in the state.