“The aim of the committee will be to listen to the farmers’ talk and the government’s talk about the agricultural law and based on this, this committee will make a report with its suggestions. These suggestions will be presented before the court in two months ”.
On Tuesday, a bench headed by Chief Justice SA Bobde of the Supreme Court said this in an interim order. In this order of 11 pages, this is the details of what will be the work of the four-member committee.
After Monday and Tuesday’s hearing, the court finally stayed the three agricultural laws of the central government till further orders.
But after this decision, the biggest question which was prevailing among the law-constitution-savvy is whether the Supreme Court has crossed the boundary between the legislature and the judiciary?
Former Supreme Solicitor General of India Mohan Parasaran says, “The Supreme Court is trying to challenge the law made by Parliament, in such cases the court looks at the constitutional validity of whether a statute is made according to the rules or not, Supreme Court laws.” Can be canceled if it is not right as per the interpretation of the constitution of the court. “
He further says, “The second thing is that when there is a constitutional challenge, it comes under public law. But in such a situation, there can be no arbitration, there is a matter of people’s rights, how can it be mediated? In this case, we assume that even if there is mediation, then there should be consent of all the parties, which is not with the court.
The court has formed a four-member committee comprising Bhupinder Singh Mann, Pramod Kumar Joshi, Ashok Gulati and Anil Ghanwat. These four members have openly supported the new agricultural laws of the government through articles and statements. In such a situation, as soon as the court announced these names, people questioned the election of these members.
Parasaran, raising questions about the unilateral vote of this committee, says, “A committee has been formed in which there are people who have openly supported this law.” Will those people be able to assess objectively? This is a big question.
He further says, “Parliament has passed this law by the government. The court has the right to decide whether the law is constitutional or not. Creating a committee for this is like forming a parallel (parallel) committee. Such as the Parliamentary Committee, which sees whether the law is right for the people or not. But this work cannot be done by the Supreme Court. This order of the Supreme Court is very unusual, according to my understanding, the court usually does not do this. Parties affected by law are also not happy with this. I think it is a decision like putting ghee in the fire. ”