Farm Laws

Farm Laws: Most farmer bodies supported 3 farm laws, SC-appointed expert panel member


The Supreme Court-appointed Agricultural Legislation Committee recommended against abolishing the three contentious farm laws that the Centre rolled back last year. “Had the Supreme Court published the Committee’s Report upon receipt, it may have informed protesting farmers about the benefits of the agricultural laws and perhaps avoided the repeal of these laws,” said Anil Ghanwat, a member of the panel.

Anil Ghanwat, one of the committee’s three members, had a news conference in New Delhi on Monday to unveil the 92-page report. Agricultural economists Ashok Gulati and Dr Parmod Kumar Joshi, two other members of the committee, were not present.

Until now, the committee report has been kept in a sealed envelope before the Supreme Court. “A repeal or a long suspension of these farm laws, according to the committee’s report, would be unjust to the silent majority who support the legislation,” Ghanwat stated.

“The bilateral contacts of the committee with the stakeholders indicated that just 13.3 percent of the stakeholders were not in favour of the three agricultural legislation,” the report adds, citing input collected by the committee. The legislation was backed by 85.7 percent of farmer organisations representing 3.3 million farmers.”

“The majority of the protesting farmers came from Punjab and north India, where the minimum support price (MSP) is a major factor. These farmers were duped by socialist and communist leaders who falsely claimed that the MSP was in jeopardy. MSP was not mentioned in the laws.”

Ghanwat said on the report of the Supreme Court-appointed committee “Despite the fact that it has been outrun by events, it is instructional for farmers and policymakers.” “Farmers, primarily from north India, who challenged these laws and succeeded in having them repealed would now realise that they have harmed themselves and missed out on an opportunity to enhance their revenues.” “he stated.

With the approval of the Centre, states may be permitted certain latitude in the execution and design of the legislation, according to the three-member committee’s general suggestions. It also proposed alternate conflict resolution procedures, such as farmer courts, through civil courts or arbitration mechanisms.