Published 21:44 IST, January 11th 2021
Centre files counter-affidavit in SC a day ahead of order; details consultative process
The Centre filed a counter-affidavit before the Supreme Court on the pleas challenging the farm laws and those seeking removal of protesters from Delhi borders.
In a significant development on Monday, the Centre filed a counter-affidavit before the Supreme Court on the pleas challenging the farm laws and those seeking the removal of protesters from Delhi borders. This comes a day before a three-judge bench comprising Chief Justice SA Bobde, Justice AS Bopanna and Justice V Ramasubramanian is set to pass an interim order on these petitions. On behalf of the Centre, Union Agriculture Minister Sanjay Agarwal stated that the protests by some farmers should not be treated as a reflection on the validity of The Farmers' Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) Act, 2020, The Farmers (Empowerment and Protection) Agreement of Price Assurance and Farm Services Act, 2020 and The Essential Commodities (Amendment) Act, 2020.
He stated that the following routes - Palla check post, Singhu border, Tikri border, Dhansa border, Sakoli border, Jai Singhpur Khera and Atohan Palwal leading to Delhi had been fully blocked owing to the farmers' stir besides the partial blocking of 4 other routes. In the counter-affidavit, Agarwal elaborated the Centre's consultations prior to formulating the farm legislation. Explaining the rationale for the farm laws, he accused some farmers and unions of carrying out protests based on the "apprehensions, misgivings and misconceptions" created by some vested interests.
Maintaining that the Centre is committed for the empowerment of farmers, the bureaucrat cited the implementation of the Swaminathan Commission report and schemes such as the Pradhan Mantri Kisan Samman Nidhi. Providing details about the several round of talks with the farmers' unions, Agarwal opined that the farm legislation was an outcome of two decades of deliberations. Moreover, he assured that the Union government had taken all efforts to engage with the farmers to remove any misapprehensions. As per Agarwal, this affidavit was filed to remove a "deliberate wrong impression" created by "non-farmer elements" present at the protest site and to apprise the SC with true facts.
Here is the affidavit:
Hearing in the SC
Earlier in the day, the SC expressed disappointment with the Centre's handling of the farmers' stir and questioned the consultative process followed before enacting the laws. Taking note of the fact that some protesters are committing suicide, the CJI asked the Centre on who should be held responsible if bloodshed takes place. While Attorney General KK Venugopal argued that courts cannot stay legislation, the CJI referred to the recent three-judge bench order which stayed the implementation of a 2018 Maharashtra law granting reservation to the Maratha community.
During the hearing, the CJI asked advocate HS Phoolka to convince the old people and the women among the protesters to return to their villages. However, Phoolka stressed that these people have joined the stir on their own. Though the bench refused to restrain the peaceful protest by farmers, it hinted at changing the site of the protest. When the Attorney General requested the top court to not pass any order in hurry, the CJI retorted that the bench had already given a very long rope to the Union government.
Updated 22:00 IST, January 11th 2021