FARMS ACT: THINK BEYOND POLITICS

-

 FARMS ACT: THINK BEYOND POLITICS

SHUBHAM BUDHIRAJA[1]

At eve of Independence, Indian economy was a stagnant and backward economy facing stances of poor production and productivity. The large dependence on agriculture sector was a cause of concern for the state. India with a promise of a welfare state along-with its goal of growth and development had to revive this poor state of economy leaving behind by colonial government. The First Five year plan was focused on agriculture situation and suggestible improvements to it. However the fruits of these seeds only seen in 1960 with a mark of Green revolution when new production technology, fertilizers introduced and India started experimenting with multi-cropping with no seasonal dependence. However with increasing shift to Industrialization and opening up the doors to market, India saw a new chapter in its growth. Though this growth was largely confined to service and Industrial sector and not to the agricultural sector.

The problems of agriculture sector are multiplex and it requires a 360 degree view to understand their issues and find probable solutions out of it.  The agriculture sector in India if we talk from days of British era was landlord based. I.e. small landless farmers had always seen a prejudice. With the industrialization, various small farmers shifted towards industrial sector. This result into conversion of rural unemployment into Industrial unemployment. These migrants are majorly unskilled and casual worker in their nature and therefore with increase in Industrialization and Increase of factory system, the spill over from rural to casualization in urban area increased with a good pace. One way to solve this problem is to skill those unskilled workers and the other way to solve this problem is to make the rural area self-sufficient enough so that the migration can be controlled. To fulfill this objective through secondary method, the Govt.’s brought concept of Rural development which is an action plan confined to the problems of rural areas and to find probable solutions to them. One of those problems is

1.   Farmers produced the crop but then he has no access to bring it to the consumer. The gap between production and selling it to the market is a process of labeling, packaging, advertising, etc. which are outside the skill of farmers.

2.       To solve this problem, Govt. introduced concept of agricultural marketing committee (AMC).

3.   These AMC bring mandi (market) to the farmers and give them access to sell these produce to the consumers through these AMC.

4.     However this system of AMC failed its objective and there are instances recorded where farmers able to sell their produce at R.s. 20 (let’s assume) but same is rated at R.s. 60 (assumption) in the market to the consumer.

5.      Farmers suicide increasing and AMC failed its aim.

6.     Essential commodities act list out some product as essential commodity to control their scarcity so the state buffer stock them and buy them from farmers. This ensures MSP to the farmers.

The Parliament passes 3 bills collectively calling it as Farms act,2020[2]. These acts alleged to violate the Schedule VII for two reasons; firstly, colorable legislation (passed as central act but fall in area of state list) and secondly, federalism.

First act aim to opening up the agriculture produce to inter-state without intervention of AMC. This doesn’t mean that AMC is dissolved. This means that farmers will have freedom of choice as to whom they want to sell.

Second act aim to de-regulate some of the govt. powers so it would open up private persons to the agriculture produce contract farming. This does not mean that there was no concept of contract farming before this act. It only means that now private persons attract the farmers though ultimate choice is of framers to choose their vendor. One substantial and important argument is the unbalanced bargaining power between farmers and private persons which require state intervention. There need some clarity on this point.

Third act delist some of agriculture produce from essential commodities act for the reason that these produce are no longer in scarcity and enough buffer stock is stored of them. However, there is no clarity whether state will stop MSP because the very concept of MSP used to emerge from state need to buffer stock those commodities. Will state buy these produce (even when it does not have a need for) to fulfill its social objective to bring social Justice to the farmers?

These acts can called as beneficial because: 

1.       Freedom of Choice to the farmers

2.  Consumer Interest because reduction of interface of middle man


These acts can called as matter of concern because

1. Drastic changes at time of covid-19 when economy is facing its worst seem to be a unwise choice

2. No clarity on MSP

3. No clarity on AMC role

One faulty system (AMC) cannot be replaced with other faulty system because the sufferer would be the consumer and farmers only. Wheatear is the result, the different state and central govt. need to come together to bring clarity on the issues of farmers and to keep aside their political differences. At present, each political party is raising its toast on this issue without giving them a hope of amicable settlement because in any way this matter would end as settled only.

This work is an expression of original literary merit of the author. It has the essence of skills, labor and minimum creativity and therefore this work is protected through provisions of Copyright act, 1957. The author reserves its exclusivity w.r.t., inter-alia, right to reproduction of this work.


[1] Associate Company Secretary, Commerce Graduated and Final Year Law student from Faculty of Law, University of Delhi

[2] The Farmers’ Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation), the Farmers (Empowerment and Protection) Agreement of Price Assurance and Farm Services and the Essential Commodities (Amendment) Act






Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

REPUGANCY UNDER ARTICLE 254 & TEST OF VALIDATING LAW

-
Image
  Shubham Budhiraja [1] [1] Company Secretary, LLB Final Year,DU & Bcom (H) The land acquisition falls in concurrent list and parliament in year 2013 has introduced a new act which provides for rehabilitation, compensation and procedure on land acquisition of property. The State of T.N has made 3 different state laws w.r.t. land acquisition which was struck off by the High Court. Thereafter, state of TN in year 2019 enacted the same law but with president assent under Article 254 to avoid the repugnancy with 2013 act under Article 254. The appeal filed before apex court w.r.t. repugnancy of 2019 state law with 2013 central law & test of validating the struck off law. The Supreme Court observed as: VALIDATING A LAW WITH RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT Case Law Relevant Remarks National  Agricultural  Cooperative  Marketing  Federation  of India Ltd. & Anr. vs. Union o...
Read more

Whether a person can be appointed as an arbitrator if his daughter is married to the son of the eldest brother of one of the parties in the arbitration proceedings?

-
Image
    Shubham Budhiraja [1] Two brothers running a family business in the form of a company and dispute arise between them and both decide to resolve through arbitration. During course of arbitration proceedings, one of party filed Section 14(2) r/w Section 15 Petition filed challenging mandate of arbitrator as being terminated because son of arbitrator is married to daughter of eldest brother of one of party and thus should be disqualified under Section 12(5) being ‘close family relationship’. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court declined the relief and held that neither the Seventh Schedule of the A&C Act nor the IBA Guidelines define the expression ‘close family relationship’. The plain language of Entry no. 9 indicates that it is not the legislative intent to render a distant relative of the parties to be ineligible for being appointed as an arbitrator, if both the parties so agree. It is not sufficient that the arbitrator is related to any one of the parties; the relation...
Read more

Whether unstamped agreement to sell executed in the year 1988 can be relied upon in suit for possession?

-
Image
  Whether unstamped agreement to sell executed in the year 1988 can be relied upon in suit for possession?   Under what circumstances, photocopy of agreement to sell can be relied upon as secondary evidence?   Shubham Budhiraja [1]   A filed a suit for possession against B on basis of agreement to sell executed in the year 1989. During the hearing, A filed IA for reading photocopy of agreement to sell as secondary evidence because he is not able to find the original agreement to sell. The Trial Court allowed the IA but in review rejected that because agreement to sell was insufficiently stamped therefore bar of section 35 of stamp act applies. The High Court confirmed the order. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that bar of Section 35 will not apply because amendment of 1990 wherein explanation was added to the stamp act was substantive in nature and therefore new obligation of stamping cannot be imposed on agreement of sell executed between A and B. [2] ...
Read more