The Supreme Court’s decision to put on hold the implementation of the three farm laws passed by the government and to set up a committee to study them is not a solution to the crisis arising from the protests being staged by farmers against the laws. It may have given a reprieve to the government, but it is doubtful if it will lead to a settlement eventually, especially because both the government and the farmers are sticking to their positions. The government has only been ready to concede some minor amendments in the laws; the farmers are not ready for anything short of complete withdrawal of the laws. It is difficult to see where the twain can meet even under the Supreme Court’s watch.
The court’s decision is by way of mediation and not in exercise of its powers to decide the legality of the laws or of the protests. There are petitions before the court challenging the constitutional validity of the laws on various grounds, and others calling for directions for an end to the protests. But the court has not addressed these issues and has indicated that it may not do so immediately. The government, in fact, asked the farmers at the last round of talks to wait for a decision by the court. It even thought that the court could be requested to take an early decision after holding daily hearings on the petitions. But the farmers rejected the proposal because they felt that what is involved is a policy matter that must be resolved by the government, instead of the court intervening in it, which they did not see as useful.
The court told the government that it would put the laws on hold if the government did not do so itself. It also said that it was “extremely disappointed’’ with the way the government had handled the protests and the negotiations. An expert panel is to be set up, but it is not clear what its role is going to be. Will the recommendations made by the committee be binding on the government or the farmers? It is unlikely that either side would agree to abide by the recommendations, whatever they are. The court also may not have the power to get them accepted. There is also the question of propriety about a panel appointed by the court to hear matters related to the farm laws without the court deciding on the constitutionality of the laws first. The Attorney General has raised the same concern, but over the court’s move to stay the laws. Drawing up the parameters on which the laws are to be studied by the panel will also be a challenge in these circumstances.