The three farm bills introduced by the parliament aim to attract private investors and improve the state of Indian agriculture. This article will analyze the three Acts and the major controversies surrounding them.
In the 2020 monsoon session, the Indian Parliament witnessed the approval of three pivotal bills related to agriculture, a move that sparked widespread protests and heated debates. Signed into law by the President, these bills have ignited a storm of opposition, raising questions about their effectiveness and constitutional validity. In this article, we delve into the intricacies of the Three Farm Bill Acts, exploring their key highlights, the issues surrounding them, and the constitutional debates they have triggered.
The Three Farm Acts: An Overview
-
Farmers’ Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) Act, 2020
This act, often referred to as the APMC Bypass Act, wields significant power through Clause 14, which overrides inconsistent provisions of State APMC Acts. It grants farmers the freedom to engage in intra-state or inter-state trade of their agricultural produce beyond the confines of physical markets established under various state APMC Acts.
Key Provisions
Clauses 3 & 4: Allows farmers to trade their produce outside APMC mandis, without incurring market fees or cess under State APMC Acts.
Clause 6: Empowers the Central Government to frame rules and regulations under the Act.
Issues
Corporatisation Concerns: The Opposition contends that the Act may lead to the corporatization of agriculture, raising fears of exploitation due to the absence of a fixed Minimum Support Price (MSP).
Transportation Challenges: Small landowners, constituting a significant portion of farmers, may struggle to transport produce over long distances, potentially selling at prices lower than MSP.
-
Farmers (Empowerment and Protection) Agreement of Price Assurance, Farm Services Act, 2020
This Act aims to establish a legal framework for contract farming in India, allowing farmers to enter into direct agreements with buyers for the sale of produce at predetermined prices.
Key Provisions
Sponsorship Inclusions: Entities like individuals, companies, firms, and societies can engage in agreements with farmers.
Dispute Resolution: A three-tier dispute resolution system is introduced, involving a conciliation board, sub-divisional magistrate, and appellate authority.
Issues
Power Imbalance: Concerns arise about the negotiating power of parties, with corporations potentially not offering fair prices to farmers, impacting their livelihoods.
Corporate Control: The Act may lead to increased corporate control over the agricultural sector, potentially exploiting both land and farmers for private gains.
-
Essential Commodities (Amendment) Bill, 2020
This amendment limits the government’s control over the production, supply, and distribution of certain key commodities, subjecting them to market-based stock limits.
Key Provisions
Market-Based Stock Limits: Restrictions on stock limits can only be imposed under specific conditions, such as a 100% increase in horticultural produce retail prices.
Issues
Hoarding Concerns: The amendment raises concerns about legitimizing hoarding, as the government may lack information on stock locations.
Impact on Private Investment: While aiming to boost private sector investment, the amendment may compromise the government’s ability to regulate and control agricultural markets.
APMC Dilemma: Unraveling the Complex Market Dynamics
Agricultural Produce Market Committees (APMCs) play a crucial role in regulating agricultural markets. These committees were established to protect farmers from exploitation by intermediaries, ensuring fair prices and timely payments for their produce. However, only 7000 of the required 42,000 mandis exist, leaving farmers with limited options.
Concerns with Overriding APMCs
Parallel Market Creation: Overriding existing APMCs might lead to the creation of a parallel market with different regulations, potentially causing the collapse of traditional mandis.
License Requirements: Traders in APMCs may face additional license requirements, hindering the smooth flow of transactions.
Impact on State Regulation: Private sponsors could undermine the state’s ability to regulate produce trade, potentially resulting in unregulated markets.
Constitutional Dilemans: Assessing Constitutionality of the Farm Bills
n the intricate web of constitutional provisions, the Seventh Schedule of the Indian Constitution plays a pivotal role in delineating the distribution of powers between states and the central government. Understanding the constitutional validity of the Three Farm Acts necessitates a closer examination of these lists and the principles they entail.
The Constitutional Framework
-
Union List, State List, and Concurrent List
The Union List grants exclusive legislative power to Parliament over certain subjects.
The State List confers exclusive legislative power to state legislatures on specific matters.
The Concurrent List allows both Parliament and state legislatures to legislate on designated subjects. In case of a conflict, the law made by Parliament prevails.
-
Entries in the State List
The State List comprises eight entries related to agriculture, covering aspects such as education, land rights, markets, agricultural indebtedness, and more.
-
Absence of Agriculture in Union List and Concurrent List
Notably, matters related to agriculture are absent from the Union List and Concurrent List, indicating that state legislatures hold exclusive powers over agricultural issues.
-
Concurrent List Entry 33
Entry 33 of the Concurrent List deals with trade and commerce, production, supply, and distribution of goods, including various agricultural products.
-
‘Food’ vs. ‘Agriculture’
The distinction between ‘food’ and ‘agriculture’ is crucial. Equating them could potentially render state-exclusive powers in the agricultural sector redundant.
The Constitutional Dilemma
-
Parliament’s Power Questioned
The Farmers’ Produce Trade and Commerce Act, 2020, faces a challenge regarding Parliament’s power to legislate on agricultural matters.
-
Objects & Reasons of the Farm Services Act
The statement accompanying the Farmers (Empowerment and Protection) Agreement on Price Assurance and Farm Services Act, 2020, asserts that Parliament lacks the authority to legislate on the subjects covered under the Farmers’ Produce Trade and Commerce Act, 2020.
-
Doctrine of Pith and Substance
The constitutionality of a law is often determined by applying the ‘doctrine of pith and substance,’ which focuses on the law’s true nature and impact.
-
Impact on State List Entries
Entry 28 of the State List, which deals with markets and fairs, is allegedly contradicted by the Farmers’ Produce Trade and Commerce Act, 2020.
-
Impacts on Entries 14, 18, and 46
The Farmers (Empowerment and Protection) Agreement on Price Assurance and Farm Services Act, 2020, is said to impact entries related to agricultural education, land rights, and agricultural income.
In Conclusion: The Future Awaits Judicial Verdict
The constitutional validity of these acts is not merely a legal debate but a matter that directly impacts the livelihoods of millions of farmers across the nation. As the legal proceedings progress, the nation watches with bated breath, awaiting a resolution that will shape the future of Indian agriculture and determine the boundaries of legislative authority.
Also, Read:
