The Supreme Court on Monday heard a batch of petitions, including those filed by DMK MP Tiruchi Siva, RJD MP Manoj K Jha, challenging the constitutional validity of the three farm laws, passed by the Centre along with the plea to remove protesting farmers.
Here are the step-by-step proceedings from inside the Supreme Court
Attorney General KK Venugopal: Parties have indicated that discussions will be continued till January 15
CJI: We are extremely disappointed with the way Centre is dealing with this. What consultative process has been followed for farm bills that entire states are up in rebellion
AG Venugopal reads out the details of the consultative process; states how the state APMC acts were amended and states that such amendments started during the previous regime
CJI: Mr Attorney please understand it will not help you that some other govt started it. This whole thing has been going on. What negotiation has been going on?
AG: Farmer unions are saying either repeal the farm acts or protest will continue
CJI: We are not on repeal. This is a delicate situation. Our intention is to see if we can bring about an amicable resolution to the problem. That is why we asked you why don’t you put the farm bills on hold. You want time for negotiation. If there is some sense of responsibility showing that you will not implement the laws, then we can form a committee with ICAR members to look into this. Till then you can continue to put the law on hold. Why will you insist on continuing the law anyhow? I am not understanding whether you are part of the problem or solution
SG: We are part of the solution. So many organizations have come to us from farmer unions and stated that the laws are progressive and that we should not give in
CJI: There is not a single pleading before us which says it is oppressive. Let those farmer unions who say it is progressive say that before the committee. But you have to tell us whether you stay the farm acts or we do it. Keep it in abeyance. What is the issue? We are not in favour of easily staying a law but we want to say don’t implement the law. People are committing suicides. People are suffering cold. Who is taking care of water and food? Old people and women are in the ground. Why are old people in the farmer protests? We don’t want to comment on the agitation. We propose to form a committee and if the government does not then we will stay the implementation of the farm acts
Adv AP Singh: We have faith on you
SC: We are the Supreme Court of India and we will do our job
Senior Adv Harish Salve: On Minimum Support Price we have agreed upon. All areas on which they are not agreeing with the centre can be resolved by judicial orders. The objectionable parts of the law can be stayed
CJI: Talks are breaking down because Centre wants to discuss point by point of law and farmers want it to be repealed. We will stay the implementation of the farm acts. After the implementation of farm laws are stayed you can carry on protest and we don’t want anyone to say that we stifled the protest. But it needs to be seen then if protesters can be removed a bit from there. Frankly, we have an apprehension that there will be some incident which may breach the peace. It may be intended or unintended
Senior Adv Vikas Singh: There needs to be guidelines for protesters
CJI: Those who are protesting are not reading guidelines. We don’t want anybody’s injury or blood on our hands
Senior Adv Harish Salve; Then this large human gathering has to be called off and they should go before the committee
CJI: Responsibility is on all of us. Any stray incident can spark violence. All of it cannot be achieved in a single order. As a court, we will not pass any order saying that you cannot protest. But we can say that it is not the only place to protest
Advocate ML Sharma submits that unless Article 369 of the Constitution is amended until then no law can be passed 5 years after the constitution came into force
CJI: We are not able to understand your petition. We will hear you later