Context: The Supreme Court on Tuesday stayed the implementation of the three new farm laws till further orders, and constituted a 4-member committee to listen to the concerns of the farmers and make recommendations to resolve the issue. Passing the order on a batch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the three laws, the court said the stay on them may assuage the hurt feelings of farmers and encourage them to come to the negotiating table with confidence. The bench, headed by Chief Justice SA Bobde also noted that negotiations between the farmers' unions and the government have not yielded any result so far, and the constitution of a committee of experts in the field of agriculture to negotiate may create a congenial atmosphere and improve the trust and confidence of farmers. The committee shall, upon hearing the government as well as the representatives of the farmers' bodies, and other stakeholders, submit a report before the apex court containing its recommendations. The top cpourt has asked the committee to hold its first sitting by 22nd January and submit its report to the court within two months from the date of its first sitting. So will the Supreme Court’s intervention & the expert committee be able to resolve the deadlock?

About the Committee

• The four members are agricultural economists Dr Pramod Kumar Joshi and Professor Ashok Gulati, Anil Ghanwat, president of the Shetkari Sanghatana, and Bhupinder Singh Mann, national president of a splinter unit of the Bharatiya Kisan Union (BKU).
• Ashok Gulati argued that the rationale of the farm bills was to provide greater choice and freedom to farmers to sell their produce and to buyers to buy and store, thereby creating competition in agricultural marketing.
• Pramod Kumar Joshi viewed farm bills to be helpful in creating favorable conditions to make farming profitable.
• Anil Ghanwat was of the view that for the “first time in the last 40 years” farmers had a chance to benefit from the open market.
• Bhupinder Singh Mann argued that all buyers must be legally bound to purchase on MSP whether they are government or private.

Views on SC-appointed panel

• The farmers' leaders rejected the committee formed by the SC on the grounds that all its members were 'pro-farm laws'.
• According to the farmers' leaders, the committee has been formed by the government through SC and all its members have supported the new legislation at one point or another.
• The farm unions have claimed that the Supreme Court-nominated committee to resolve the stand-off over three agricultural reform laws is “a government ploy”.

What are the issues with the suspension?

• The court’s action, at first sight, is a violation of separation of powers.
• It also gives the misleading impression that a distributive conflict can be resolved by technical or judicial means.
• It is also not a court’s job to mediate a political dispute.
• Its job is to determine unconstitutionality or illegality.
• Even in suspending laws there needs to be some prima facie case that these lapses might have taken place.
• It has set a new precedent for putting on hold laws passed by Parliament without substantive hearings on the content of the laws.
• Also in appointing the committee, the court has violated the first rule of mediation: The mediators must be acceptable to all parties and appointed in consultation with them.

Road Ahead

• The Supreme Court order has given the government a setback while not addressing the concerns of the protesting farmers. The court needs to consider these facts and mend its implications.