Extremely disappointed with negotiation process between Govt & farmers on farm laws, situation very delicate: SC

There is not a single petition before us which says that these farm laws are beneficial', the SC bench said

The Supreme Court on Monday proposed to stay the implementation of three farm laws and form a committee to resolve the impasse arising out of farmers' protests at Delhi borders.

The top court also pulled up the Union government for failing to resolve the matter despite several rounds of talks with the agitating farmers' unions

When Attorney General K K Venugopal said that the farmer unions have rejected various offers by the government, a bench presided over by Chief Justice S A Bobde said, "We are extremely disappointed the way the government is handling the issue."

On Venugopal pointing out that the parties had indicated that discussions will be continued on January 15, the bench asked, "What consultative process has been followed for farm bills that entire states are up in rebellion?"

The bench further said if there is some sense of responsibility, the government will not implement the farm laws. The court also wondered why the government was not willing to stay the implementation of laws till the resolution of the deadlock. It also pointed out not a single petition placed before it had referred to any benefit of the new laws.

"People are committing suicide. People are suffering in cold and in pandemic situation," the bench said, about the ongoing protests by the farmers for over 45 days.

The court indicated to stay the implementation of the three farm laws, which triggered massive protests by farmers from Punjab, Haryana and Western Uttar Pradesh.

Venugopal, for his part, submitted that farm laws can't be stayed as this would be drastic. None of the parties point out how it is unconstitutional. Many states and farmers' unions have not joined the protest.

"We are doing this because you have failed to solve the problem. The farm laws have resulted in a strike and now you have to solve the problem," the bench, also comprising Justices A S Bopanna and V Ramasubramanian, said.

Farmer unions, led by senior advocate Dushyant Dave, questioned the passage of farm laws by voice vote in Rajya Sabha.

He, however, assured the court there would not be a tractor rally on January 26.

Indian Kisan Union, led by senior advocate P S Narasimha asked the court not to pass an interim order and let the A-G take instructions and allow the meeting to happen on January 15.

"A large number of organisations believe that laws are beneficial for them," he said.

Refusing to consider his request, the bench said, "We will make the atmosphere conducive for talks. Till then the farm laws can be put on hold. Who is going to be responsible for bloodshed? What if some conflagration takes place. We have to uphold Article 21 as constitutional court".

The court also said the police can take care of law and order issues but the right to protest would remain intact.

Dave said the farmer unions have maintained complete discipline and nothing untoward happened in 48 days.

The court proposed to form a committee for talks, stating that it had approached ex-CJI P Sathasivam who had declined on the grounds of not understanding Hindi.

Dave, for his part, suggested the name of Justice R M Lodha.

The court said it would pass an order in the matter.

A batch of petitions, including those by DMK MP Tiruchi Siva, RJD MP Manoj K Jha, against validity of three farm laws, along with the plea to remove protesting farmers came up for consideration before the top court.

During the hearing, senior advocate Harish Salve submitted that the court does not generally stay a law, though it has the power to do so. But it should not be like government is pushed to the backfoot and the protest continued, he said.

"You cannot demand a repeal of the law when the law is not in force," the bench said.

The farmers' representatives and government must approach the Committee with an open mind, he said.

Advocate Rahul Mehra, appearing for the Delhi government submitted that the stalemate should end as people are not protesting out of choice and they must have a fair dialogue.

Senior advocate Colin Gonsalves, appearing for some farmers' unions submitted that a committee of four lawyers, Dushyant Dave, Prashant Bhushan, HS Phoolka and himself, had been appointed which would go back and consult unions and take a stand.

The court asked senior advocate H S Phoolka to persuade the protesting old people and women to go back to their places from the protesting site.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta asked the court to pass an injunction to restrain protesters from disrupting the Republic Day.

The court asked him to file an application.