Science

1. ASSIGNMENT ON
THE INDIAN FARM REFORMS, 2020
SUBMITTED TO: SUBMITTED BY:
(PROF) DR. PRADEEP KULSHRESHTHA BADRUL ALAM
DEAN SYSTEM ID: 2020822415
SCHOOL OF LAW LL.M (CORPORATE LAW)
SHARDA UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW
SHARDA UNIVERSITY

2. Three Farm
Reform Bills
2020
Farmers protest against
Farmers' Produce Trade
and Commerce
(Promotion and
Facilitation) Act 2020
Farmers (Empowerment and
Protection) Agreement of
Price Assurance Act 2020
Act no
2
The Essential
Commodities
(Amendment) Act, 2020

3.  Key provisions of the laws:
Farmers (Empowerment and Protection) Agreement on Price Assurance and
Farm Services Act, 2020
Background
Act:
Provisions:
(a) Farming Agreement:
(b) Minimum Period of
Farming Agreement.
(C)Maximum Period of
Farming Agreement:
(d) Pricing of Farming
Produce:
(e) Settlement of Dispute:

4. Farmers' Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) Act,
2020
Background
Act
Provisions:
(a) Trade of Farmers'
Produce:
(b) Alternative Trading
Channels:
(c) Electronic Trading:
(d) Market Fee
Abolished:

5. Essential Commodities (Amendment) Act, 2020
Background:
Act:
Powers of Central
Government:
Powers of State
Government:
Amendment:
Stock Limit:
Calculation:

6. Let's see how these Act
effective In general

7. Farmers: They say that new laws will leave them at the "mercy" of corporates and
pave way for the end of Minimum Support Price. (MSP is the rate at which the
government buys crops from farmers in case they fail to sell it to middlemen.)
Commission agents: Their monopoly and fat profits are at stake.
State governments: Stand to lose sizeable revenue from mandi fees, especially in
the ‘Green Revolution belt’ of Punjab Haryana and western UP
Political parties: Ruling parties in states don’t want to lose mandi revenues.
Besides, commission agents prop up local political leader in both ruling and
opposition camps with funds.
Who all are protesting?
Why?

8. Farmer’s demands are: As of 3 December 2020, the farmers' demands
include:
Repeal the three new farm laws
Convene a special Parliament
session to repeal the farm laws
Make minimum support price (MSP)
and state procurement of crops a
legal right
Implement Swaminathan Panel
Report
Assurances that conventional
procurement system will remain
Cut diesel prices for agricultural use by
50%
Removal of punishment and fine
for stubble burning
Release of farmers arrested for burning
paddy stubble in Punjab
Abolishment of the Electricity
Ordinance 2020
Centre should not interfere in state
subjects, decentralization in practice

9. : The government and farmers from certain states are at odds over the
efficacy of the new laws. The government believes the laws will improve price stability, while the small farmers fear
they will end the age-old mandi-system.
Government vs farmers
Govt says that ... Yet farmers fear ...
Farmers will be free to choose their markets and the
MSP system will continue
The new laws will eventually end MSP support
unless there's a legal guarantee that no procurement
will happen below MSP anywhere in the country
Farmers have equal say in setting sale price. They
can withdraw from the contract at any stage without
penalty, but corporate buyer will have to pay agreed
price and penalty for breaching contract.
Corporates will have an upper hand in fixing prices
and resolving disputes in courts
10,000 Farmer-Producer Organisations (FPOs) set
up across country will enable small farmers to deal
with corporates
Small farmers will be left in the lurch as corporates
wouldn't want to deal with them
Mandis will be forced to become more competitive The mandi system will eventually collapse
Direct marketing of produce will save them agents’
cut and they won’t have to pay cess or levy nor bear
transport costs
Case in point: Some farmers say they were forced to
sell their produce directly at throwaway prices
(lower than MSP) during lockdown restrictions

10. Broad arguments for the law and against the laws:
* The government claims these Acts will
transform Indian agriculture and attract private
investment. The Farmers (Empowerment and
Protection) Agreement on Price Assurance and
Farm Services Act, 2020, provides for contract
farming, under which farmers will produce
crops as per contracts with corporate investors
for a mutually agreed remuneration.
But
The protesting farmers fear that powerful
investors would bind them to unfavorable
contracts drafted by big corporate law firms,
with liability clauses that would be beyond
the understanding of poor farmers in most
cases.
According to the government, The Farmers’
Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and
Facilitation) Act, 2020 liberates farmers by
giving them the freedom to sell anywhere.
But
The Opposition says this would lead to
corporatization of agriculture, with the market,
along with the monsoon, becoming an
unpredictable determinant of the destiny of
farmers. They argue that farmers can sell
outside the APMC even now, and most in fact
do, albeit after paying the required fees or
cess.

11. Question over the constitutionality of these laws:
sss
But matter is, The Farmers (Empowerment and Protection) Agreement on Price Assurance and Farm
Services Act, 2020, and The Farmers’ Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) Act, 2020 do not
mention, in the Statement of Objects & Reasons, the constitutional provisions under which Parliament has the
power to legislate on the subjects covered.
if any person want then constitutionality of parliamentary laws can
be challenged only on two grounds — that the subject is in the State
List, or that it violates fundamental rights. Is invoking parliamentary
powers on agriculture consistent with the scheme of federalism and
spirit of the Constitution? Does Parliament have the power to enact
laws on agricultural markets and lands? Should the Constitution
have been amended before enacting these laws?
As per Union of India v H.S.Dhillon
(1972),
Ram Krishna Dalmia v Justice S R
Tendolkar (1958) and other judgments
These are some of the questions that will be raised in the petitions
challenging the constitutionality of the Acts. the Supreme Court
will begin hearings after presuming the constitutionality of these
laws; therefore, the burden on states and individuals who
challenge these Acts will be quite heavy. Generally, the Supreme
Court does not stay the implementation of parliamentary laws.
CAA and UAPA were not stayed.

12. where does the question of federalism come in?
In State of West Bengal v Union of India (1962), the Supreme Court held that the Indian Constitution is not federal.
But in S R Bommai v Union of India (1994), a nine-judge Bench held federalism was part of the basic structure of
the Constitution.
The respective legislative powers are traceable to Articles 245 to 254… The State qua the Constitution is federal in
structure and independent in its exercise of legislative and executive power,” it said.
The respective legislative powers are traceable to Articles 245 to 254… The State qua the Constitution is federal in
structure and independent in its exercise of legislative and executive power,” it said. Federalism, like
constitutionalism and separation of powers, is not mentioned in the Constitution. But it is the very essence of our
constitutional scheme
The Seventh Schedule of the Constitution contains three lists that distribute power
between the Centre and states. There are 97 subjects in the Union List, on which
Parliament has exclusive power to legislate (Article 246); the State List has 66 items
on which states alone can legislate; the Concurrent List has 47 subjects on which both
the Centre and states can legislate, but in case of a conflict, the law made by
Parliament prevails (Article 254). Parliament can legislate on an item in the State List
under certain specific circumstances laid down in the Constitution.

13. what happens in case of legislation that covers entries in two ( State List and
Concurrent ) Lists?
In cases such as State of Rajasthan v G Chawla (1959),
The Farmers’ Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) Act, 2020 flies in the face of Entry 28 of
the State List (markets and fairs), and The Farmers (Empowerment and Protection) Agreement on Price Assurance
and Farm Services Act, 2020 impinges on Entries 14, 18, and 46 of the State List, and Entry 7 of the Concurrent
List (above).
In interpreting the lists, the Supreme Court in State of Bihar v Kameshwar Singh (1952) invoked the doctrine of
colorable legislation, which means you cannot do Indirectly what you cannot do directly.
In ITC Ltd v APMC (2002), the Supreme Court upheld…
The Seventh Schedule of the Constitution contains three lists that distribute power between the Centre and states.
There are 97 subjects in the Union List, on which Parliament has exclusive power to legislate (Article 246); the
State List has 66 items on which states alone can legislate; the Concurrent List has 47 subjects on which both the
Centre and states can legislate, but in case of a conflict, the law made by Parliament prevails (Article 254).
Parliament can legislate on an item in the State List under certain specific circumstances laid down in the
Constitution.

15. Conclusion
if government for the people of India and if
the people protesting right way then:
accept farmers
demands.
Should support their
MSP