Farm Acts – Unwanted Constitutional Adventurism

Context: There is a case to argue that the three Farm Acts have poor legal validity, making it unconstitutional that weakens federalism.

The 3 Farm Acts:

• The Farmers’ Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) Act, 2020.
• The Farmers (Empowerment and Protection) Agreement on Price Assurance and Farm Services Act, 2020.
• The Essential Commodities (Amendment) Act, 2020. 

Centre vs State Jurisdiction in Agriculture:

• State List Provision: due to following reasons, intra-state marketing in agriculture was always considered a legislative prerogative of States. 

• Entry 14 – Agriculture is listed as a State subject.
• Entry 26 – refers to trade and commerce within the States.
• Entry 27 – refers to “production and supply of goods”.
• Entry 28 – refers to “markets and fairs”.

• Concurrent List Provisions:

• Entry 33 – introduced through the Constitution (Third Amendment Act 1954) & is related to Trade and commerce, in and the production, supply and distribution of:- 

• Products of any industry under the control of Union (Declared by Parliament by law to be expedient in the public interest)
• Foodstu?s, including edible oil seeds and oils.
• Cattle fodder, including oilcakes and other concentrates.
• Raw cotton, whether ginned or unginned, and cotton seed; and Raw jute. 

• Clash between the provisions:

• The powers of the States was usurped by the Centre by invoking Entry 33, since Entry 26 and 27 in List II are listed as “subject to the provisions of Entry 33 of List III”. 
• However, the Entry 28 in List II is not subject to Entry 33 in List III.

Case Study 1: The 3rd Constitutional Amendment Act and its dissent - 

• Purpose:
• It amended Article 369 to make agricultural trade and commerce within a state, a permanent responsibility of the Centre, as against the earlier temporary provision for 5 years. 
• It was required to safeguard the interests of the weaker units in the Union, since many states were deficit in food production.
• Dissent: included following rationale - 
• It was not desired by Constitution makers to place matters enumerated in Article 369 in the Concurrent List.
• The legislative authority of the State legislature is abrogated to a certain extent.
• Article 369 was a temporary feature because the situation in the country after 1947 was abnormal and the food situation was bad, but the situation was expected to be normal in future.
• A progressive erosion of State powers

Case Study 2: Judicial Pronouncements in the I.T.C. Limited vs. Agricultural Produce Market Committee (APMC) and Others, 2002. 

• The five-judge constitutional Bench in this case upheld the legislative powers of the States in intra-state agricultural marketing.
• It upheld the validity of the Agriculture Produce and Marketing Committee Act and ruled that – 

1. Market fees can be charged from any firm under the state APMC Act.
2. State laws become repugnant only if the State and Centre enact laws on the same subject matter under an Entry in List III 
3. In those cases outside List III, ?rst examine if the subject matter was an exclusive entry under List I or List II, and only after determining this can one decide on the dominant legislation that would prevail. 

• Relevance with current issue: In the case of the Farm Acts of 2020, the applicable points are (a) and (c). 

• Regarding (a), States could continue to charge mandi taxes from private markets anywhere in the noti?ed area regardless of the Central Act. 
• Regarding (c), State legislation should prevail as agriculture is exclusive subject matter (Entry 14 in List II)

Conclusion:

• Centre’s move to push through Farm Bills employing Entry 33 weakens the spirit of federal cooperation that India needs in hour of crisis.

• Everything that is ancillary or subsidiary to an exclusive subject in List II should also fall under the exclusive legislative purview of States, since Agriculture is exclusively a State subject.