The Supreme Court wades into farmer standoff
The TLDR: The Court charged head-first into the government vs farmers faceoff with a vengeance—threatening to issue an immediate stay on the new farm laws, and institute a committee to resolve the stalemate. But the farmer unions said ‘Thanks, but no thanks!’, and the government challenged the court’s authority to intervene in legislative matters. Here’s a quick explainer on the latest twist in this mahabharath.
PS: We have done a number of explainers on the farm laws. We explained why the Court is taking a very different tack with these protests compared to Shaheen Bagh. Also: Here’s our breakdown of the farm laws and on the minimum support price—which is all-important to the unions.
What did the Supreme Court say?
The Court held a hearing on a bunch of petitions challenging the laws. The three-judge bench—headed by Chief Justice Bobde—used the occasion to administer a public spanking to the government. Here’s the gist of the two-hour outburst.
One: The situation is unacceptable and could spiral out control: "Each one of us will be responsible if anything goes wrong. We don't want any injuries or blood on our hands.”
Also this: “The situation has gone (sic) worse. People have committed suicide. Why are the old and the women part of the agitation in this weather?"
Two: The government has been unable or unwilling to govern: “We are sorry to say that you, as the Union of India, are not able to solve the problem. You have made a law without consultations. We think you can resolve it. But you are not able to do it.”
Three: Since the repeated rounds of talks have failed, the Court threatened to put the laws on hold, and constitute a committee to find a resolution—while allowing the protest to continue: "Tell us whether you will put these laws on hold or else we will do it. What's the prestige issue here?... We don't know if you are part of the solution or part of the problem."
Four: When the attorney-general argued that the Court should not interfere in legislative matters, Justice Bobde snapped: “Don’t tell us that. We have so far given you a very long rope. So, don’t lecture us on patience.”
Point to note: The Court has not scheduled any more hearings on the matter, and is likely to issue its ruling today.
What does the government say?
After being smacked down in Court, the government responded with a 45-page affidavit underlining its “serious, sincere and constructive efforts” to engage with a “limited number” of farmers—citing “two decades of deliberations” aimed at reforming farm laws. Bottomline: The demand for repeal is “neither justifiable nor acceptable.” Read it in detail here.
What about the farmers?
They are every bit as unenthusiastic about the Court stepping in. And while they welcomed the Court’s “comforting words,” the farmer unions have firmly refused to appear before any Court-appointed committee. Here are their reasons:
One: A temporary stay on the laws is not enough: “We continue to stick to our demand for a repeal of the laws. A stay (on the laws) was never our demand and so our struggle will continue till the laws are repealed.”
Two: The committee will achieve nothing and end in the same deadlock as the past eight meetings: “Looking to the attitude and approach of the Government which made it clear before the court today repeatedly that they will not agree to the discussion for repeal before the committee."
Three: The “Supreme Court does not and cannot have any role” in resolving the deadlock. Since the decision to implement the laws was a political gambit by the government, it must be tasked with repealing them: “The Modi government is shirking political responsibility of solving the crisis of its own making... It is misusing the Supreme Court as a political shield.’’
Four: Most strikingly, they don’t trust the government or the Court. One called the committee “a delaying tactic which is what the government wants… to divert and dilute the growing farmers movement.” Others were more explicit:
“Another farmer leader… said unions expected a ‘honey trap’ to lure them into binding mediation in the form of a court-appointed committee, followed by vacation of the protestors.
‘Not a single petitioner has officially demanded mediation, although the Centre has been pushing farmers to discuss the issue in a committee,’ said the leader. ‘This just goes to confirm that the government gets the court to do what it cannot,’ he said.”
Can the Court block or repeal the laws?
Issuing a stay: The legal community is split over whether the Court can insert itself into a legislative matter. Some cite Article 142—which authorises the Supreme Court to ensure complete justice in a matter pending before it. But others argue that the Court can only determine the constitutionality of the law—not whether the law itself is just or wise. And it therefore cannot be in the business of playing referee.
A full repeal: As the Indian Express notes, the Court has been very reluctant in the past in determining the constitutionality of any legislation. The reason: any law passed by Parliament is presumed to represent the will of the people in a democracy.
A law can be struck down for very specific reasons. Either the Parliament has no power to legislate on a certain matter as per the Constitution. Or the law itself violates a citizen’s fundamental rights or some other constitutional provision. And some farmer unions argue that these farm laws do exactly that:
“These laws are a clear encroachment on State functions. Agriculture is a State subject but yet the Centre got the laws passed through the via media of trading, which falls in the concurrent list. These legislations are clearly violating the federal principle. The Supreme Court should ask the government to repeal the laws.”
Point to note: Chief Justice Bobde made it very clear that he is not interested in overturning the laws—only issuing a temporary stay. OTOH, the government seems exceptionally keen on dragging the Court into the matter (despite the grumbling in court). When the last round of talks failed, the government apparently told farmers that the issues will be best resolved by the Court—and asked them to appear at the next hearing. A claim implicitly confirmed by the Agriculture Minister:
"In our democracy, it is Parliament which makes the laws. But the Supreme Court has every right to examine it. Whatever decision the court gives, the government is committed to following it.”
The bottomline: We’re filing this under: Things that make you go ‘hmm’.
Reading list
The Telegraph offers a good overview of the Supreme Court’s comments. The Hindu has the best report on the farmers’ anxieties about the committee. Indian Express has details of the government’s affidavit, and looks at the Court’s record on legislative matters.