With the failure of 9th round of talks between Centre and farmers Unions, both sides have agreed to resume discussions on 19th Jan, in a bid to break the deadlock over three contentious farm laws. The end to farmers agitation is not in sight. The Supreme Court waded into a delicate situation, which is being watched by the world. Even though the government and the farmers were not seeking its help and yet the Court stepped in any way and held the three laws in abeyance. Though it’s not cutting any ice, as the farmers demand repeal of laws. And the Supreme Court should have concerned itself about the question of the constitutionality of the farm laws.
Appointment of the committee is an extra-parliamentary method to settle the debate over laws is worrisome. The court is not only undermining the legislative but also the nation's faith in a representative democracy. It is hard to see how the court-appointed committee can come up with an amicable solution. As such, the verdict of appointment of a committee of Experts has not resolved the standoff. Farmers have refused to end the agitation and cooperate with the so-called Expert committee and it has only widened the scope of the dirty politics. Let it be the purview of the government, not the Supreme Court to rule the country. The Govt should learn a lesson from this verdict that laws shouldn’t be enacted in haste and must be done after convincing all the stakeholders. The centre and states must work in tandem for the progress of the country. It's a wonder that this government especially since it came to power, announced all important issues unilaterally, in haste by taking things for granted because of brute majority in Lok Sabha.
As per the Supreme Court, the committee it has constituted will hear all sides and help the apex court understand whether the farm laws are in “public interest.” This self-given assignment is outside the top court’s remit, as its job is to determine the constitutionality or otherwise of legislation, not whether it’s in the public interest. That's for the people to decide. Here for the sake of the record, all the four experts are strongly pro-Govt on the Agri-laws. Instead of being an honest broker, the court may be courting disdain.
For conducting negotiations, the members ought to and should be known to have an open mind on core issues which alone will create confidence in the parties concerned. The validity of the laws can only be decided after proper hearing of the recommendation of the committee.
Therefore bringing in a committee of known views amounts to constitutional abdication and farmers have rightly refused to appear before it. Howsoever powerful the court may be, there are always limits to its power.
