Petitions challenging the Farm Laws in Supreme Court and petitions related to farmer agitations
The Supreme Court has stayed all three agricultural laws till further orders and ordered the formation of a committee. Earlier, the court reprimanded the farmers for not going to the committee and said that we want a solution to the problem, but if you want to go on indefinite agitation, you can. It is expected that Farm Laws in Supreme Court can give its verdict on agricultural laws today i.e. on Tuesday. It is possible that the Supreme Court may set up a high-level committee headed by a former Chief Justice of the country with the intention of resolving this deadlock between the government and the farmers.
A bench of Chief Justice SA Bobde, Justice AS Bopanna and Justice V Ramasubramanian on Monday had indicated during the hearing of the case that it may pass orders in different parts on issues related to agricultural laws and the farmers’ movement. So let’s know all the latest updates of the ongoing hearing in the Supreme Court.
Farmer Protest Supreme Court Hearing live updates:
Supreme Court constitutes committee to ban agricultural laws
The Supreme Court took note of Harish Salve’s charge, stating that banned organizations are funding this demonstration. This was mentioned in a petition before the court. The Supreme Court asked AG Venugopal on this – can you confirm that this is correct?
AG Venugopal said- We can confirm. Give us a day’s time … On January 26 there is high security in the country. There is no question of allowing one lakh people to enter the capital. They should not seek the assistance of the court for their own benefit.
After this the Supreme Court said that it should be left to the police. We do not have the right to decide this.
- Harish Salve requested the Supreme Court that when the court gives orders, write the MSP in it and the farmers should be allowed to stay in the Ramlila Maidan. The court said that if they insist, it will be considered. But the farmers have to get permission from the police for the demonstration.
The Supreme Court told the farmers ‘organizations,’ This is not politics. There is a difference between politics and judiciary and you have to cooperate.
The Supreme Court insisted on the formation of the committee and said that only we will make the committee, no power in the world can stop us from forming it. We want to understand the ground situation. After this, the Attorney General said that the committee is a good idea and we welcome it.
- Senior advocate Harish Salve, appearing for one of the petitioners, says the ban on the enforcement of laws should not be seen as a political victory. He said that this should be seen as a critical examination of the concerns expressed over the laws.
During the hearing of the petitions challenging the agricultural law, the CJI said that the committee is part of the judicial process in this case. We plan to suspend the laws but will not be there indefinitely.
Advocate ML Sharma, appearing for the farmers on behalf of the farmers, said that the farmers said that many people had come to discuss, but the Prime Minister who is the main person of this conversation did not come. On this, the Chief Justice said that we cannot tell the Prime Minister that you go to the meeting. He is not a party in this case.
CJI said that we are forming a committee so that we have a clear picture. We do not want to hear the argument that the farmers will not go to the committee. We are looking to solve the problem. If you (the farmer) want to go on an indefinite agitation, you can do so.
Further on agriculture laws, the Chief Justice said that this committee will be for us. All of you who are hoping to resolve this issue will go before this committee. It will neither pass any order nor punish you, it will only submit a report to us.
Subsequently, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court said that we are also concerned about the validity of the laws, protecting the lives and property of the citizens affected by the protests. We are trying to solve the problem according to the powers we have. One of the powers that we have is to suspend the law and form a committee.
Advocate ML Sharma, who filed a petition challenging the agricultural laws, told the court that the farmers had said that they would not appear before any committee constituted by the court.
Hearing began in the Supreme Court on petitions challenging agricultural laws.
Prior to the decision of the Supreme Court, farmer leader Rakesh Tikait said that after the decision of the court, our committee has to meet. After this we will talk to our legal team. In this meeting, we will decide ahead and formulate a strategy.
- The bench on Monday heard the petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the three agricultural laws as well as the issues of the right of citizens to move freely during the peasants’ movement. The court had slammed the Center for not finding any solution to the negotiations with the farmers and expressed great disappointment over the entire situation.
What happened in Monday’s hearing – Farm Laws in Supreme Court
The Supreme Court had said that he was deeply disappointed by the way he interacted with the farmers. He will set up a committee to find a solution to the dispute. Order in this regard will be given on Tuesday. Expressing his displeasure during the hearing of the case, the bench of Chief Justice SA Bobde even hinted that if the government does not postpone the implementation of these laws then it can ban them.
In line with this, the court also stated that it could establish a committee under the chairmanship of the former Chief Justice on Farm Laws in Supreme Court who could include representatives of all unions in the country. The court refused to give more time to the central government to find an acceptable solution to the issue, saying more time had already been given.
The bench said, Attorney General! We’ve given you a lot of time. Please, do not give us talk about balance. The high court said it would appeal orders in this regard on agricultural legislation and the farmers’ association in the case. The bench also asked the parties to nominate two former Chief Justices including former Chief Justice RM Lodha so that the presidency could be run by the high court.
As soon as the trial began with a video conference, the bench commented on the incident. The nations rebel against your laws. We are very disappointed with the negotiation process. We do not want to comment on any of your conversations, but we are very disappointed with this process. The Supreme Court has heard appeals against the implementation of the three agricultural laws and the removal of farmers encamped on the Delhi border. The court said it was not currently commenting on the repeal of the rules. This is a very serious situation. There is no single application before us, which describes these rules as useful.
Attorney General KK Venugopal suggested that no law could be upheld until a court found that it violated fundamental rights or the Constitutional process. He said the court should consider whether the postponement of the law in this way would become a habit. The matter will be heard today or an order may be made.