Congress MP Moves SC Challenging Farmers' (Empowerment and Protection) Agreement of Price Assurance and Farm Services Act, 2020 [Read Petition]

The plea filed through Advocate James P. Thomas challenges Section(s) 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 13, 14, 18 and 19 of the impugned Act as violative of Article 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

Three Farm Bills Receive Presidential Assent

The impugned Act for Contract Farming was passed by the Parliament during its Monsoon Session and came to force on September 27, 2020.

Whereas the legislation, along with another Act for free-market trade of farm produce, has set off massive farmers' protests, the Petitioner herein has submitted that the Act in its current form will spell "disaster" for the farming community by opening a parallel market which is unregulated and gives enough room for exploitation of the farmers' community by concentration of power in the hands of a few corporates/ individuals, multinationals and moneylenders.

Explained: The 3 Farmers Bills And The Controversies Surrounding Them

It is submitted that the legislation has been hastily passed without having adequate discussion on it, and some of its provisions are in fact against the basic structure of the Constitution and fundamental rights of the farmers.

Further, it fails to establish farmer centric courts where the farmers can raise their grievances, similar to the ones created under the labor act, consumer act, family courts act etc. instead the act gives the responsibility to Sub divisional Magistrate who already has multiple other duties and functions to perform.

The grounds taken in the plea are listed below:

• Definition of a "farmer" under the Act does not identify the labour/tiller/share cropper working in the farm as a farmer, which is in essence discriminatory as it undermines their effort and further, it leaves out the rights of the labour/share cropper who is actually doing the hard labour to help produce/irrigate the farm.
• The use of words "predetermined quality" in definition of "farming agreement" is a recipe for disaster as it will give the sponsor the opportunity to make flimsy excuses and refuse the yield or re-negotiate the price.
• The standards used for farming produce may be more profit oriented and the parties involved may overlook the environmental impact of such "standards" leaving the land barren or unfertile due to excessive and over use. Once the land loses its fertility properties, the farmer will lose his only source of income.
• Section 13 of the Act on Dispute Settlement does not define or make it clear who will be allowed to represent the parties, therefore, the dispute resolution system is unclear on how effective assistance will be provided.
• Section 14 of the Act for referral of dispute to the Executive Magistrate makes the already overburdened bureaucracy to help solve farmers' issues. Thus this particular system of adjudication is already destined to fail. The aggrieved farmer will have no time to work if he is regularly ensconced in the government office.
• Section 18 (for Protection of action taken in good faith) practically legalizes any form of decisions based on corruption by a public officer, if the SDM takes a decision in conflict of interest that act provides ample protection under the garb of "in good faith" to such illegal actions. Such widely drafted provision not only leaves scope for mischief but also questions the bonafides of the legislature.
• Section 19 (Bar of jurisdiction of civil court) is violative of basic fundamental rights granted by the Constitution for adequate legal assistance. "By limiting one's right to approach a court of law, this is making the Executive an all-pervasive and all-encompassing force which is completely in violation of rule of law."

Click Here To Download Petition

Read Petition