The ground has fallen out from beneath the farmer’s feet

Context: Many has raised certain concerns about various provisions of recently enacted Farms laws, their constitutional validity and negative effects on the farming community. Three Farms Acts are:

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

Concerns regarding Farm laws:

• Constitutional violations:
  • Challenge to the separation of power: Agriculture remains a matter under the purview of the State List under Entries 14, 18, 46, 28; the acts deprive states of their revenue via any cess or levy.
  • Freedom of trade: under Article 19(1)(f).
  • Right to livelihood: under Article 21.
  • Denial of a decent standard of living: by interfering in the way that such a ‘living’ is earned by the farmer, impinging on Article 43 of the Directive Principles of State Policy.
• Lack of technical know-how: Changing the farming trade into digital contractual terms may be ineffective due to lack of technical know-how among the farmers.
  • This may result in the hiring of middlemen by farmers resulting in enhanced operational costs.
  • In case of disputes, farmers are more vulnerable as they have to stand up to wealthy corporations.
• Exclusion: of the cropper, labourer, tiller, etc. from the definition of Farmer in the Acts.
• Bestowed power to the sponsor:
  • Power to refuse the yield: and absence of any necessity on his part to give reasons to the farmer behind such refusal.
  • In-charge for checking legal compliance: This means that all legal blind-turns are open to legitimate exploitation by such sponsors.
• Requirement of a “mutually acceptable quality, grade and standard”: as a mandate for trade.
  • This may result in the exploitation of the environment to labour to the farmer’s own by the contracting company.
  • Quality check to be done by a third party, who may act in the interests of corporates given no security is ensured to farmers.
• Overburdened Sub-Divisional Magistrate: May result in harming the interests of the farmers during the process of dispute redressal procedures in the absence of a conciliation process under the agreement.
• Use multiple subjective terms: Such as “extraordinary circumstances” and “extraordinary price rise”.
  • Words such as “horticultural produce” and “non-perishable agricultural foodstuffs” can open up a contract to multiple disputes over interpretation.

Conclusion: A well-discussed law having inputs from various stakeholders are more likely to be implemented in letter and spirit.