Agriculture employs approximately 58% of India’s population. The central government is committed to double the income of farmers by 2022, so it has enacted three acts: the Farmers’ Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) Act, 2020, the Farmer (Empowerment and Protection) Agreement of Price Assurance and Farm Services Act, 2020, and the Essential Commodities (Amendment) Act, 2020. The study below will show whether this act favours or against Indian Farmers.
Constitutionality of the Acts
As per the Constitution of India, there are 97 subjects in the Union List on which Parliament exercises its exclusive power to legislate which is mentioned in Article 246 of Indian Constitution, 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 as per Article 254 of the constitution.
It is unavoidable that the Central government may pass laws pertaining to the topics on the State List in certain situations. But how can parliament pass any legislation on agribusiness when we all know that the State List covers it? The Supreme Court ruled that the Indian Constitution is not federal in State of West Bengal v. Union of India, but in S. R. Bommai v. Union of India, which was decided in 1994, it was determined that federalism is a fundamental component of the constitution.
The concurrent List’s subjects can never be read to mean that the federal government has the authority to pass legislation pertaining to agriculture because agriculture is a state subject. Agriculture must be treated as a trade under Entry 41 of the Union List in order for it to be deemed a subject.
Interest groups are always considered before a measure is passed to determine whether it will accomplish its goals. However, in this Monsoon Session, the legislation was passed so carelessly that no consideration was given to interest groups, and the majority was used to pass the legislation.
Consequences of the New Acts
Farmers will be able to trade and buy farm products outside of the state thanks to the Farmer’s
Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) Act, 2020. The mandis run by APMC will no longer function under the new law, but they won’t be abolished either. Due to the elimination of the mandi, there will be no purchases of crops through MSP, and the small farmers will be compelled to sell their products to corporations at lower prices. (Minimum Support Price).
Farmers are permitted to engage into contract farming agreements with corporations under the terms of the Farmer (Empowerment and Protection) Agreement of Price Assurance and Farm Services Act, 2020. The farmers’ greatest worry is that the corporates will write the contract in such a manner that the farmers will be at the corporates’ mercy. Furthermore, the vast majority of farms lack the knowledge necessary to comprehend the intricate agreement clauses that will maintain the corporates’ dominant position. Another factor is that because they can make significant profits all at once, corporations would rather reach an arrangement with large farmers.
The smaller prices that the corporations are offering will require the small farmers to adapt. 2020 goods like cereals, pulses, oilseeds, onions, and potatoes have been taken off the list of essential commodities according to the Essential goods (Amendment) Act. Experts say it’s a smart move because it will increase farmer revenue, but it could also increase rural poverty and harm the public distribution system. This Act’s change contains a significant flaw that will enable wealthy individuals to stockpile necessities like cereal, pluses, edible oil, onions, and potatoes, which will drive up prices.
Viewpoint of the Government on New Acts
MSP is in doubt because farms cannot always create superior-quality food. Farmers sell several different kinds of produce. According to them, the government loses money because the farmers keep the better quality for their own use while providing the inferior quality for the market.
According to the government, the new rules will make it easier for people to become familiar with cutting-edge technology, which will enable them to produce more. The Act will also assist farmers in forging direct connections with corporations, eliminating the need for middlemen who used to take advantage of farms.
The fear of middlemen will persist in businesses despite the loss of employment for middlemen in states because farmers won’t be able to negotiate their demands on their own and will instead need a middleman to do so. The dread of exploitation that the government intended the new laws to combat will also keep growing.
As per the central government there is no removal of APMCs and they will continue to exist but after closely digging into the problem, we find that gradually APMCs existence will cease to exist as only a few farmers will come there who did not get suitable deals with the corporates due to which the state government will not be in position to finance or maintain them which ultimately leads to their end.
Objections to the Laws
In the article titled ‘Did You Think the New Laws Were Only About the Farmers?’ of The Wire, Section 13 of The Farmers’ Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) Act, 2020[3], has been rightly criticized as it takes away the powers of the farmers or any other person to approach the court as the section itself provides for a wider interpretation.
Even actions taken by the government in good faith may not always be beneficial to the populace. As a result, this provision allows for a broad interpretation that must be limited.
Conclusion
Although there have been widespread demonstrations against the new agricultural Acts, no conclusions have been reached. The latest conversations show that the farmers do not want to negotiate and that they want the new laws to be repealed. Although the Honorable Prime Minister recently addressed the country, he gave the farmers an assurance of MSP. The farmers, however, have yet to be willing to accept those rules. Interest groups must indeed be consulted before legislation can be passed. Before passing the bills, there ought to have been a thorough debate about them. No such chaos would have happened if an appropriate mechanism had been implemented. We can continue to believe that the central government will find a more effective answer in resolving the complexities of the new rules.
Contributed By: Arzoo Kala (Intern)