Farm Laws 2020: Farming towards an Executive Overreach of the Judiciary

The newly enacted Farm Laws, that have faced stiff opposition, have largely been criticised for lack of protective mechanisms like MSP and usurpation of state power to legislate on the matter. However, crucial component also being overlooked is the concilation process. MAHALAKSHMI PAVANI writes on the usurpation of judicial power and the vesting of final adjudication with the state.

———–

"Our Farmers deserve Praise, not condemnation, and their
Efficiency should be cause for Gratitude,
Not something for which they are penalized"

John F Kennedy

Last month, amidst intense drama and furore on September 20, the Upper House of the Indian Parliament passed three new Bills regulating the agriculture sector in India. They were passed by way of a voice vote, despite several calls for a division by members of the Opposition. They received assent on September 27.

These Bills subsequently received the assent of the President of India and now features in the Official Gazette as

(i) The Farmers' Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion & Facilitation) Act 2020 ("Produce Trade and Commerce Act");
(ii) The Farmers (Empowerment and Protection) Agreement on Price Assurance and Farm Services Act 2020 ("Agreement on Price Assurance Act"); and
(iii) The Essential Commodities (Amendment) Act, 2020.

The new legislation provides for farmers to enter into farming agreements with any person, thereby paving the way for a free market economy to penetrate the Indian agricultural sector. Unlike the earlier regime that typically saw the farmer sell his produce to licensed middlemen authorised by state Agricultural Produce Market Committees ("APMCs"), the farmer is now 'empowered' to get out of the clutches of such middlemen and deal in their produce with whoever they wish to do business with.

Peculiar features on conciliation

A rather peculiar feature in the Produce Trade and Commerce Act are the Chapters that deal with disputes.

In the event of any dispute, the farmer and trader can approach the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM) to arrive at a solution through conciliation proceedings.

The Chairperson of such a Conciliation Board shall be a person who is under the direct control and supervision of the SDM. The other members shall be appointed based on the recommendation of the parties to the dispute. However, the SDM has the power to appoint these other members if either party fails to recommend its representative within 70 days.