Can Centre Give A Commitment To Not Implement Farm Laws To Facilitate Discussions? Supreme Court Asks Attorney General

The Supreme Court on Friday asked the Attorney General for India if the Union Government can give a commitment that the contentious farm laws will not be implemented while the court is hearing the petitions seeking removal of farmers protests."Can the Union say no executive action will be taken under the laws in order to facilitate the negotiations", CJ SA Bobde asked AG KK Venugopal.The AG replied that he will get back after taking instructions from the Central Government.The Solicitor General submitted that it will be impossible to commit that the laws will not be implemented.The CJI replied to SG : "If the AG is saying he will get back, why are you preempting?".The bench did not pass any order today in the PILs against the farmers protests as there was no representation for the eight farmers unions which were added as respondents in the case. Only Bharatiya Kisan Union(Bhanu), which has filed an intervention application in the cases challenging farm laws, appeared before the court through Advocate A P Singh.Solicitor General of India, Tushar Mehta, informed the bench that he has instructions that BKU(Bhanu) does not share the views of other unions. In this backdrop, the bench refrained from passing any substantive directions.The Court only directed the service of notice on the unions by tomorrow so that the matter may be listed before another bench day after tomorrow or during vacation. Liberty is also granted to move before the vacation Bench.The Supreme Court is closing tomorrow for Christmas holidays. CJI said that he and his colleagues may not be available during vacation on account of prior commitments and therefore a different bench might hear the matter.The CJI further refused to accept the suggestion of Senior Advocate Harish Salve(appearing for one of the petitioners seeking removal of protests) to pass an order directing the authorities and police to ensure that the life in Delhi is not affected by the blockade. "The court can pass such an order only after hearing the unions," the CJI said. "Purpose of protest can be achieved only if people talk to each other. If the protest has a purpose other than the protest, we wish to facilitate that," CJI observed during the hearing on Thursday while reiterating its inclination to form a Committee to hold talks between representatives of the farmers and the Central Government, to resolve the farmers' protest.He insisted that the protests should continue in a "non-violent manner". He further observed that the police can also not use violent means during this time. The Court was hearing the petitions seeking removal of farmers protesting at Delhi borders against the three Farmers Acts.During the hearing on Wednesday also, the CJI had indicated that the Court might form a committee for negotiations with the Unions. "Your negotiation does not work apparently; we will form a committee to resolve the issue", the CJI had told the Solicitor General. Today, the CJI again observed, "we are proposing an independent impartial committee before whom both the parties can state their case while the protest goes on and that the committee will give its opinion, which we expect the parties to follow." He added, "In protests, the aggrieved party must be able to articulate their view and the party who is said to have caused the grievance has option to answer. We think this can be done before an independent committee. We will propose names like journalist P Sainath." At the beginning of the hearing, the CJI said that the Court will not consider the petitions challenging the farm laws(which were also listed today before the bench)."We will not decide the validity of the laws today. The first and the only thing we will decide today is regarding the farmers protest and the fundamental right of citizens to move. The question of validity of laws can wait".After the Bench suggested formation of a Committee, the Attorney General insisted that a direction should be passed for the farmers' organization to consider the Acts clause by clause. He said, "Their demand is to repeal the three laws. For that they have to come to the table and discuss the laws clause by clause. They must be directed to come for discussion. It cannot be like 'repeal or nothing'. They cannot say either repeal or will continue indefinitely. They have come prepared for six months. This kind of blockades cannot be permitted. This happens only during a war where you cut off supply etc and block borders." He added, "Let there be some persons of eminence who can facilitate a dialogue. It is a question of sitting together with neutral people who can facilitate discussions." At this juncture, Senior Advocate P. Chidambaram, appearing for the State of Punjab, submitted that he has no objection to the Court's suggestion that a group of people can facilitate a dialogue between farmers and the Central Govt.Farmers' Right to protest affecting fundamental rights of ...

Can Centre Give A Commitment To Not Implement Farm Laws To Facilitate Discussions? Supreme Court Asks Attorney General

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Can Centre Give A Commitment To Not Implement Farm Laws To Facilitate Discussions? Supreme Court Asks Attorney General

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers