Moot Court-

ISSUE NO. 4

Submitted by:

Name: Vyshnavi Moola

Batch: 2016-21

Division: C

PRN: 16010324238

In the month of

March - 2021

As part of

INTERNAL ASSESSMENT – IV

MOOT COURT EXERCISE AND INTERNSHIP

Under the guidance of:

Dr. Pankaj Umbarkar

Asst. Professor
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

In the year 1947:

1. Indistan gained independence and is now a sovereign, socialist, secular, democratic

republic known for being the largest democracy in the world. Celebrated for its cultural
and ethnic diversity, Indistan has the lengthiest written Constitution in the world. Besides
being an exporter of several agricultural products across the continents and having
mainstay of its economy and foundation of its social and cultural heritage on agriculture,
Indistan is predominantly an agriculture-based country with 80% of its population
dependent on agriculture for their living.

In the year 1961:

2. The green revolution reached Indistan, making inroads for the use of modern
agricultural tools and appliances, novel fertilizers and pesticides, and improved varieties
of seeds thereby leading to industrialization of agriculture sector. Its main aim was to
create a platform for farmers to negotiate and sell their produce at optimum prices.
However, the fruits of the green revolution were reaped by well-off farmers belonging to
a particular area.

3. Farmers also suffered at the hands of intermediaries, who purchased farm produce at
very low prices and sold them out at extremely higher prices. On several occasions, the
intermediaries delayed or refused buying from the farmers, leading them to distress
selling at low prices.

In the year 2003:

4. To curb the exploitation of farmers, the Agricultural Produce Market Committee Act
was passed which provides for the formation of Agricultural Produce Market Committees
(APMCs) in each state to regulate sale of farm produce through auction. The market place
i.e, Mandi, is set up in various places within the states and licenses are issued to the
traders to operate within a market. This system failed in many states, owing to many
reasons ranging from ignorance of farmers to corruption and abuse of power.

In the year 2004:

5. The government attempted to address the issues faced by farmers by setting up
National Commission on Farmers under the Chairmanship of Prof. D.C. Vardaranjan. The
Commission submitted five reports between December 2004 and October 2006
highlighting some of the causes for farm distress, such as unfinished agenda in land
reforms, quantity and quality of water, technology fatigue, inadequacy and timeliness of
institutional credit, etc.

In the year 2019:

6. The 'Indistan Liberal Front' won overwhelming majority in the Lok Sabha elections
to form the Union Government. By the end of 2019, a pandemic by the name of COVID-
19 broke out, claiming several lives and affecting the livelihood of people across the
globe affecting the world economy adversely.

In the year 2020:

7. “Three ordinances in June namely the 'Farmers' Produce Trade and Commerce
(Promotion and Facilitation) Ordinance 2020, the 'Farmers (Empowerment and
Protection) Agreement on Price Assurance and Farm Services Ordinance 2020 and
the Essential Commodities (Amendment) Ordinance 2020”, with respect to farmers'
produce and marketing were passed while the parliament was not in session.
Objections were raised by the Opposition party as well as farmer unions on the
provisions proposed in these Bills. Eventually, the Bills were passed in September
2020 when the Parliament came into session. The said Bills called Agricultural
Reforms were as follows:
(a) “The Farmers' Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) Act,
2020”
(b) “Farmers (Empowerment and Protection) Agreement on Price Assurance and
Farm Services Act, 2020”
(c) “Essential Commodities (Amendment) Act, 2020”

8. The 'Khubani Group' a huge MNC had built large storage houses in one of the
farming states was also alleged that the government is inclined towards benefitting the
capitalists making the farmers merely slaves of the corporate. The Kisaan Mukti
Morcha (a community of different farmers) along with Kisaan Sanharsh Sangh
(Indistan Fundamentalist Party) raised voices against the Acts and demanded a formal
 undertaking for protection of farmers from exploitation through Minimum Support
Price. A petition calling for nullifying the laws was also filed as they felt that the
report submitted by Varadarajan commission was overlooked by the Parliament and
also because the recommendations of the Standing Committee were awaited.

9. It was contended that:

 The Acts were passed in haste by a voice vote, despite the demands of several
members to call for division of votes and decide by majority.

 Agriculture being a state subject under entry 33 can be only used as a pretext by
the Parliament, to override the state governments' powers to make laws related to
agriculture.
 Non provision of minimum support price to the farmers as demanded by them for
many decades.
 The Acts will encourage hoarding and black marketing
 The Acts indicate towards contract farming, which could potentially turn farmers
into slaves.
 ISSUE 4: WHETHER THE PARLIAMENT OVERSTEPPED ITS POWERS TO
FRAME LAWS ON AGRICULTURE, WHICH IS A STATE SUBJECT?

1. The Respondent humbly submits that the Parliament was well within its powers to frame
and enact the three Farm laws and has not overstepped into the domain of the State
legislative powers. Concurrent List Entry 331 deals with commerce and trade, production,
distribution and supply of domestic as well as imported goods of an industrial unit
controlled by the Parliament for public interest; foodstuffs which include oils and
oilseeds; cattle fodder; jute and raw cotton. The term ‘foodstuffs’ however, is wide
enough to include agriculture within its ambit. It is to be noted that by its own language
Entry 33 of the Concurrent List transfers State legislative power under Entries 262 and 273
of List II to List III as Concurrent powers of Parliament and State. Therefore, the
Parliament is within its powers to pass laws on contract farming, inter-state as well as
intra-state trade.

2. Another pertinent aspect is that these laws majorly deal with how farmers can sell. The
laws in pith and substance deal with trade and commerce and production and have very
little to do with agriculture. Incidentally, this was discussed by the Constituent Assembly
as well. The Constituent Assembly debates show that initially Ministry of Industries and
Supply as well as Shibban Lal Saxena and Shyama Prasad Mukherjee suggested that the
subject of trade, commerce and production, supply and distribution of the controlled
industries should be matter of Union List. However, they were later added in the
Concurrent List. This depicts the importance accorded to the legislative power of the
Union over the States in matters of trade, commerce and production. Also, even if it’s
assumed that the Farm laws are inconsistent with certain State laws on the same subject
matter, under Article 2544 of the Constitution of India, in the case of inconsistency or

1
Trade and commerce in, and the production, supply and distribution of— (a) the products of any industry
where the control of such industry by the Union is declared by Parliament by law to be expedient in the public
interest, and imported goods of the same kind as such products;
(b) foodstuffs, including edible oilseeds and oils;
(c) cattle fodder, including oilcakes and other concentrates;
(d) raw cotton, whether ginned or unginned, and cotton seed; and
(e) raw jute.”
2
Trade and commerce within the State subject to the provisions of entry 33 of List III.”
3
Production, supply and distribution of goods subject to the provisions of entry 33 of List III.”
4
(1) “If any provision of a law made by the Legislature of a State is repugnant to any provision of a law made
by Parliament Which Parliament is competent to enact, or to any provision of an existing law with respect to
one of the matters enumerated in the Concurrent List, then, subject to the provisions of clause”
(2), “the law made by Parliament, whether passed before or after the law made by the Legislature of such State,
or, as the case may be, the existing law, shall prevail and the law made by the Legislature of the State shall, to
the extent of the repugnancy, be void”.
 repugnancy between the State law and the law made by Parliament, the latter would
prevail. Therefore, the Farm laws would prevail over the State laws in case of any
inconsistency between the two and the Parliament was within its powers to frame and
enact the Farm Laws.
3. In the case of Tika Ram Ji v. State of U.P.5 the Supreme Court considered the Scheme of
distribution of Legislative power in Lists II and III of Seventh Schedule and has held that
“Production, supply and distribution of goods was no doubt within the exclusive sphere
of the State Legislature but it was subject to the provisions of Entry 33 of List III which
gave concurrent powers of legislation to the Union as well as the State….” This case
reiterates the point that the State legislative powers are subject to the powers of the Union
under Entry 33 of the Concurrent List and therefore, legally speaking, the Parliament has
the competence and the power to frame the Farm Laws under Entry 33 of the Concurrent
List.
4. The Inter-State Council’s Report of 20156 observed, “Planning and coordination of
agricultural development is a matter of common concern to the Union and the States.
Obviously, this aspect cannot be wholly left to the individual States. Indeed, it requires a
cooperative endeavour between the two levels of government.” Similarly, the reports of
the Varadrajan Commission7 suggested that the farmers need to have control and access
over resources and markets to address the multiple issues faced by them. Following these
recommendations, the Parliament passed the Farm Laws with an intention to assuage the
fears and the difficulties faced by the farmers. Therefore, considering the relevant laws,
constitutional provisions and cases, it can be rightly concluded that the Parliament was
merely exercising its constitutional powers granted under Entry 33 of the Concurrent List
and it has not overstepped its powers by framing and enacting the Farm Laws.

(2) “Where a law made by the Legislature of a State with respect to one of the matters enumerated in the
Concurrent List contains any provision repugnant to the provisions of an earlier law made by Parliament or an
existing law with respect to that matter, then, the law so made by the Legislature of such State shall, if it has
been reserved for the consideration of the President and has received his assent, prevail in that State: Provided
that nothing in this clause shall prevent Parliament from enacting at any time any law with respect to the same
matter including a law adding to, amending, varying or repealing the law so made by the Legislature of the
State””
5
“AIR 1856 SC 676.”
6
“Inter State Council Report, 2015, CHAPTER XIV (interstatecouncil.nic.in).”
7
“Refer to Para no.5 of the Fact Sheet.”