1. Farmer’s Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) Act, 2020

a) Promotes barrier-free intra-state and inter-state trade of farmer’s produce.

b) Prohibits state governments or APMCs from levying fees, cess, or any other charge on

farmers produce.

2. Farmers (Empowerment and Protection) Agreement of Price Assurance and Farm Services Act, 2020

The act seeks to provide farmers with a framework to engage in contract farming, where farmers

can enter into a direct agreement with a buyer (before sowing season) to sell the produce to them

at pre-determined prices.

3. Essential Commodities (Amendment) Act, 2020

The act removes cereals, pulses, oilseeds, edible oils, onion, and potatoes from the list of

essential commodities.

Farm LawsConstitutional or Unconstitutional?

● Agriculture is a State subject in the Constitution, listed as Entry 14 in the

State List (List II).

● This apart, Entry 26 in List II refers to “trade and commerce within the State”;

Entry 27 refers to “production, supply and distribution of goods”; and Entry 28

refers to “markets and fairs”.

Entry 33 in List III

Trade and commerce in, and the production, supply and distribution of, —

a) The products of any industry where the control of such industry by the

Union is declared by Parliament by law to be expedient in the public

interest, and imported goods of the same kind as such products;

b) Foodstuffs, including edible oilseeds and oils;

c) Cattle fodder, including oilcakes and other concentrates;

d) Raw cotton, whether ginned or unginned, and cotton seed; and

e) Raw jute.

Constitution (Third Amendment) Act, 1954

As per Article 369 in the original version of the Constitution, the responsibility of

agricultural trade and commerce within a State was temporarily entrusted to the

Union government for a period of five years beginning from 1950.

• Asoka Mehta warned that if the Centre truly wanted control on trade and commerce in States,

then, over time, it would also want to have “control over crop planning and cultivation”. Thus,

the Bill would lead to “an expanding encroachment on the rights of the States”; “a progressive

erosion of State powers”; and “the possibility of side stepping of democratic processes”.

• According to K.K. Basu, “passage of the Bill would transform the Indian Constitution into a

“unitary Constitution” instead of a “federal Constitution” and reduce “all the States’ powers into

municipal powers”. A “reactionary legislation” was being introduced as “an innocuous piece

of legislation”.

Lack of consultation.

No select committee route.

The voting on the Farm Bills in the Rajya Sabha was not done in accordance with the

rules of the House.

There was a violation of the rules of the House in passing the Bills by voice vote when

there was a demand for division.

Article 100 says that all questions at any sitting of either House shall be determined by a

majority of votes of the members present and voting.

The Bills were all passed by voice vote, there is a violation of the rules as well as the

Constitution.

Courts not to inquire into proceedings of Parliament

Article 122: The validity of any proceedings in Parliament shall not be called in question

on the ground of any alleged irregularity of procedure.

Article 122 of the Constitution protects the proceedings of the House from judicial

review. But this protection is available only when the proceedings are challenged on

irregularity of procedure. Violation of the Constitution is not a mere irregularity of

procedure.

Raja Ram Pal case (2007)

Article 107 says that a Bill shall not be deemed to have been passed unless it has been

agreed to by both Houses.

SC appointed Committee

“The negotiations between the farmers’ bodies and the government have not yielded

any result so far. Therefore, we are of the view that the constitution of a committee of

experts in the field of agriculture to negotiate between the farmers’ bodies and the

government of India may create a congenial atmosphere and improve the trust and

confidence of the farmers.”

The protesters reaffirmed a basic principle of democratic accountability and responsible

governance.

This is a constitutional court that does not pronounce on the constitutionality of laws.

Instead, it wades into political and administrative management

Farmers have

1. Objected to being forced into binding mediation

2. Suspected the composition of such a committee.

Stay? On what grounds?

The court’s order putting on hold the farm bills is terrible constitutional precedent, bereft of

judgment.

Hurt PrincipleStaying the farm laws “may assuage the hurt feelings of the farmers and encourage them tocome to the negotiating table with confidence and good faith.”