Centre particulars ‘2 decades’ of talks, says no choice however reforms post-Covid

Seeking to dispel what it known as “the erroneous notion… peddled” by protesters that the federal government and Parliament didn’t maintain any consultations earlier than passing the farm legal guidelines, the Centre Monday filed an affidavit within the Supreme Court detailing the “two decades of deliberations” behind them. It additionally argued that some states had been tardy in implementing the reforms of their “true spirit”.
The affidavit filed by the Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers’ Welfare, additionally underlined the “serious, sincere and constructive efforts” made by the federal government to have interaction with “the limited number” of farmers protesting the legal guidelines. It mentioned that the truth that the agitation was restricted to just one place confirmed {that a} majority of the farmers discover the laws “progressive and in their interest” by providing them choices. “The agitation by/in the name of some of the farmers may, therefore, not be treated as reflection on the validity of the law or its efficacy and usefulness for the farmers’ community.”
The affidavit argued that adjustments had been wanted in state advertising legal guidelines as these hindered agricultural commerce in addition to provision of authorized assist to farmers to grasp remunerative costs. It mentioned the necessity for reforms “was felt and conceived in the late Nineties after kick-start of economic liberalisation”, and that an Expert Committee set as much as overview the agricultural advertising system had in a June 2001 report recommended numerous legislative reforms.
Following this, the Centre identified, an inter-ministerial process pressure report of June 2002 had additionally really useful “several legislative reforms in the State APMC Acts and the Essential Commodities Act to remove restrictive provisions impeding development of an efficient and competitive marketing system, for promotion of direct marketing, for encouraging contract farming and for rationalisation of market fee/tax structure”.
It was after acceptance of this report that the Agriculture Ministry formulated the Model APMC Act, 2003, and Rules, 2007, in session with states, the Centre mentioned. When it was observed that their adoption by states and Union territories “was of varied degree and slow”, in 2010, an Empowered Committee of 10 state ministers was shaped to “persuade” the states to implement the Act and guidelines, in addition to to recommend additional reforms.
This committee submitted its report in 2013, searching for steps for eradicating obstacles in the way in which of markets. The affidavit mentioned the committee “specifically consulted farmers from various states”, and therefore the petitioners’ declare of not being consulted “has no basis in fact whatsoever”.
The affidavit went on to say a Working Group of Agriculture Production, constituted in May 2010, below the chairmanship of the Haryana Chief Minister and together with CMs of Punjab, West Bengal and Bihar. It mentioned this group really useful “that the market for agricultural produce must be immediately freed of all sorts of restrictions on movement, trading, stocking, finance, exports etc” and that “no monopoly, including that of APMCs or corporate licensees, should be allowed to restrict the market”. The committee additionally recommended that the Essential Commodities Act be invoked solely in instances of emergency and in session with states.
Next, in 2017, the Centre mentioned, the federal government formulated “a progressive, more liberal” State Agriculture Produce and Livestock Marketing (Facilitation & Development) Act to “provide for geographically restriction-free” commerce of agricultural produce; to present “freedom” to farmers to promote; to “enhance transparency” in funds; to advertise a number of channels for aggressive advertising, agri-processing and agricultural export; and to encourage investments.
On May 21, 2020, the affidavit mentioned, the Department of Agriculture, Cooperation and Farmers’ Welfare held a gathering, attended by 13 states/UTs, for suggestions on this new authorized framework.
Thus, the Centre mentioned, it has been “actively and intensively engaging with the states for about two decades to achieve the… objectives of reforms to provide accessible and barrier-free market system” and that “states either showed reluctance to adopt the reforms in true spirit or made partial or cosmetic reforms”.
It mentioned that whereas the Covid-19 lockdown setbacks had additional accentuated the necessity for reforms, solely states comparable to Tamil Nadu, Uttar Pradesh, Karnataka, Uttarakhand, Madhya Pradesh, Goa, Tripura and Meghalaya had taken some measures to facilitate farmers. And that it was in mild of this that it had introduced within the three legal guidelines by way of ordinances, which had been later changed by Acts.
About talks with the protesting farmers, the Centre mentioned it had achieved all it might to deal with “specific grievances of some farmers”, itemizing the “constructive dialogue” held on completely different dates, and the implementation of the Swaminathan report via hiked MSP. Given that the Acts had obtained “wide acceptance “, it said, the demand for repeal is “neither justifiable nor acceptable”.