- Judgement Summary - Rakesh Vaishnav & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
- Date of Summary - 18/12/2020
- Judges - Headed by CJI Bobde, A S Bopanna, V Subramanian
- Parties - Rakesh Vaishnav & others (petitoners) versus Union of India & Ors. (respondents)
Subject
The preliminary issue before the Court was claim of the residents of NCT - that the manner in which the protest was being conducted was seriously inhibiting the supply of essential goods to the city, because of restrictions on goods vehicles. The petitioners feared that this might lead to a steep increase in prices of goods which would be difficult for people to bear in this times of the pandemic.
An overview
1. While petitioners contended that no fundamental right is absolute and it depends upon the Court to define the extent to which one can exercise the rights bestowed upon them - the respondents submitted that the Delhi roads were actually blocked by the police to not let the farmers enter into Delhi borders.
2. The court clarified that it shall not interfere with the right of protesting farmers - as long as they maintain the law and order - furthering holding that there can be no delay in the exercise of such rights.
3. In order to resolve the present stalemate between protestors and the government of India, the court directed to set up a committee - that shall constitute fair and impartial persons, including experts of Agriculture.
4. In the meantime, the petitioners were allowed to serve the unserved respondents/impleaded farmers.
Important Provisions
â—� Farmers' Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) Act, 2020 - intra + inter state trade of farmers' produce beyond APMC
â—�Essential Commodities (Amendment) Act, 2020 - allows Central government to regulate the supply of food items under exceptional circumstances
â—� Farmers (Empowerment and Protection) Agreement, 2020 - creates a national framework for contract farming
Analysis of the Judgement
â—� In the light of recent court orders in Arnab Goswami and Varavara Rao case, this court order supporting the protesting farmers is actually a breath of fresh air since the judicial institutions and extends it support to protect fundamental rights of dissenting farmers.
â—� Constitution of a committee to resolve the stalemate between farmers - is surely a step not only towards an amicable resolution but also an increase in the use of alternative dispute resolution to reach an agreement.
â—�Under the scrutiny that the democratic institutions see themselves facing, protection of Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression by the judicial machinery is very much a welcome change and is sure to set a solid precedent in the upcoming hearing of the writ petitions filed against the "black" laws
Conclusion
The approach adopted the apex court, though a breath of fresh air, is not devoid of the fact that the Court has consistently looked sideways in gross human rights violations over last few years. However, a court order, might not set the record straight, but it does introduce a norm that other institutes should adhere to.
The State of Punjab, Kerala, Rajasthan have unequivocally declared their support to the farmer's movement and passed resolutions on their assembly, however the Centre stands firm on it's decision. In situation such as this, the apex court declaring its stand to protect the rights of the protesting farmers gives them an added insulation against the machinery and trying to undermine their movement.
