What Kanoon Says

Prime Minister of India violates Rule of Law and Walks Free

2021-04-19T12:50:00.003-07:00

In this article, we will talk about how the eminent leaders of our country especially Prime Minister violating COVID-19 guidelines when coronavirus positive cases are more than 2 Lakhs per day. On one side, they are imposing a fine and beating the common man for infringement and on the other side, they are violating COVID-19 guidelines and no action is taken against them.

COVID – 19 guidelines in Brief:

As per Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) Order No. 40-3/2020-DM-I (A) dated 23^rd March 2021.

1. Wearing a mask. (Mandatory)

2. Maintain social distance i.e., 6 ft gap (2 gaz ki doori) in public places.

Cases of Violation:

Instance 1:

1. Azamgarh case – On April 7, 2021, Ashish Goyal, Jewellery Shop owner, was not wearing a mask properly while he was in his shop. So, Police had brutally beaten Ashish for not following COVID – 19 guidelines. This incident was reported by NDTV on Prime Time by Ravish Kumar. The video of such report is given below.

2. Indore case – On April 7, 2021, NDTV reported on Prime Time by Ravish Kumar that Krishna Kunjir, an Auto-Rickshaw puller, was beaten brutally by 2 Policemen for not following COVID – 19 guidelines. The video of such news report is given below.

3. Tablighi Jamaat case – On April 2020, many Muslims were prosecuted for participating in Tablighi Jamaat, held at Nizamuddin Markaz Mosque in Delhi, against COVID – 19 guidelines.

Tablighi Jamaat is the group of conservative Muslims who gather traditionally at the headquarter, Nizamuddin Markaz, in the Nizamuddin West, South Delhi, India. In such gathering preachers of Islam impart education related to the core value of Islam, among Muslims. People from all around the world attend Tablighi Jamaat.

4. Ramazan ban – In Uttarakhand on April 21, 2021, as per Para 2 of Order No. 60/USDMA/792(2020) all religious, social and political gathering have limit of 200 people except for the Kumbh Mela. Isn’t this violation of Art. 15 on the grounds of Religion? Isn’t this could provoke ‘Communal Violence’ among religion?

Instance 2:

1. Kumbh Mela: On the occasion of Kumbh Mela, more than 40 Lakhs of the Hindus devotees gathered at the Haridwar, Uttarakhand to do Shahi Snan. Kumbh Mela started on March 11, 2021 and will continue till April 27, 2021. Uttarakhand C.M. Trivendra Singh Rawat has refused to put a stay on Kumbh Mela. Even when cases of coronavirus are surging day by day.

2. Political Rallies: Political Parties in West Bengal, Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Assam and Puducherry violated COVID – 19 guidelines while campaigning and no political party was prosecuted. The worst part is that Prime Minister, Home Minister of India, Chief Ministers of the abovementioned states and Union Territory were also part of such violation. They conduct various road shows without maintaining social distancing and wearing a mask.

Election Commission Guidelines related to COVID – 19 in the election:

As per Para 1.1, every person should wear a mask during election-related activity.
As per Para 1.3, Social distancing shall be maintained as per the extant COVID-19 guidelines of the State Government and Ministry of Home Affairs.
As per Para 13.1, there should be only 5 persons (except security personnel, if any) who would do door to door campaign.
As per Para 13.2, in the roadshow, there should be a gap of 30 mins after 5 cars.
As per para 13.3, In the case of an Election meeting, District Election Commissioner should identify a place and put a mark at every 6ft in that place, before holding any election meeting, public gathering etc. Moreover, Nodal District Health Officer should be involved to ensure compliance with all the rules.
As per para 13.4, anybody violating instructions on COVID-19 measures will be liable to proceed against as per the provisions of Section 51 to 60 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005, besides legal action under Section 188 of the IPC, and other legal provisions as applicable

Aforementioned cases show clear violation of COVID -19 guidelines which is evident from the photos given above. Isn’t these incidents are ‘Super Spreader’? But nothing has been done. Election commission, on April 09, 2021, only threaten to ban rallies in it's letter to all recognised state and national political parties.

Author views:

Instance 2 is a grave violation of the Rule of law and Right of Equality. Rule of Law and Right of equality are those Pillars upon which our whole Law System is built. In the case of the I. R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu – (2007) 2 SCC 1, Coram of the 9 judges held that the Equality and Rule of Law form parts of the basic structure of the Constitution.

Rule of law is the principle which states that no man is above law and also that every person is subject to the jurisdiction of ordinary courts of law irrespective of their position and rank. Rule of law is no were mentioned in the Constitution of India, 1950. But still, the Supreme Court of India in a catena of cases upheld Rule of law as a basic structure of the Constitution of India.

Right to Equality is mentioned under Art. 14 and Art. 15 of Constitution of India, 1950. Art. 14 states that everyone is equal before the law. Even, Prime Minister, Home Minister of India and Chief Ministers are same as a normal person is from the eyes of the Law. Art. 15 prohibit any discrimination on grounds of religion, sex etc. As we see in Instance 1 para 4 (Ramzan ban), where one religion is restricted from the celebration of their festival and on the other side another religion is free to celebrate. Muslims should also be allowed to celebrate Ramzan with COVID guidelines. In the same way as in election commission rule in Para 13.3 regarding political rallies. In every Mosque, a mark at every 6ft should be made so that devotee can stand there and do their prayers. In this way, safety will be ensured and they will be able to celebrate their festival, also.

As we see in Instance 2, there is a grave violation of the COVID – 19 guidelines and the worst part is that such violation is done by the Prime Minister of India, Home Minister of India and Chief Ministers of the polling states as well as Uttar Pradesh CM. This gross violation is happening when India is recording more than 2 Lakhs Coronavirus positive cases every day and deaths due to coronavirus are also rising. The more sad part is that the election in West Bengal is still left and all the political parties are campaigning without caring for COVID – 19 restrictions.

I want to request the Election Commission of India and other concerned authorities, to punish each person according to the law of land equally whether it is a normal person or Prime Minister of India. Prime Minister of India, Home Minister of India and Chief Ministers of the polling states should be punished strictly, even stricter than a normal person to put the best example that law is same for everyone, no matter whether he/ she is PM or normal person. In order to uphold and strengthen pillars of the constitution of India i.e., Rule of Law and Right to Equality and set a great example for the people of India as well as for other countries.

As of April 10, 2021, Norwegian Prime Minister, Erna Solberg, was fined Rs. 1.75 Lakhs by the Cops for Breaking COVID restrictions. She organised her 60^th birthday party for the family and no. of people at the party exceeded the restricted limit which is 10 and the people present at the party were 13. The cops, there, said that they would have fined much less if there was a common man in her place but since the violator was PM that’s why we have imposed such a hefty fine.

Appeal: Other festivals such as Ramadan, Navratri are also going on. It is a humble request to all the devotees to celebrate their festivals but keep in mind COVID restrictions and think about your family.

Stay Safe, Stay Healthy

Author: Satwik Sharma

Put your views in the comment section.

Ranjan Gogoi: CJI accused of Sexual Harassment

2021-03-20T10:52:00.012-07:00

In this article, we will see the procedure opted by the Supreme Court for enquiry. After then we will see What Kanoon Says about it, which means we will see related provisions laid in the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (PoSH act, 2013), In house Procedure, 1999, Constitution of India, 1950.

Facts of the Case:

April 19, 2019

The woman sent an affidavit to the 22 Supreme Court Judges on April 19, 2020. The affidavit was well-detailed and well-corroborated with the documents and videos. In the affidavit, she had narrated incidents of sexual harassment victimization by the CJI. The content of the affidavit was published by news channels.

Content of Affidavit

According to the affidavit, incidents of sexual harassment took place on October 10, 2018 and October 11, 2018.

October 10, 2018 – First-time CJI sexually harassed Woman.

Here is the portion of the affidavit narrating the incident:

“Though I usually wear a uniform of black and white clothing, on that day since it was the first day of Navratri, I had worn an orange kurta and dupatta. The CJI referring to my clothes, told me, “You are looking pretty good today.” The CJI asked me to come and stand next to him, he got up from his chair. The CJI then asked me, “What can you do for me?”, I kept repeating that I was very grateful and that everybody in my family was very happy. The CJI then slid his hand from the back of my head, along my back to my hipline, till my lower back. I immediately froze and my body stiffened. I think the CJI sensed this, and so he immediately pulled both my cheeks, like one would do to a child. He told me that he is like this with his daughter too.”

Later, CJI said to the woman to write down what she could do for him.

October 11, 2018 – Second-time CJI sexually harassed W.

She described the incident of October 11, 2018, as follows:

The CJI once again asked me, “So, what can you do for me”. He asked me whether I have written anything down, I showed him a notepad on which I had written how grateful I was…The CJI read the note. He then got up from his chair and walked across and came and stood to my left. Since he was standing, I too stood up as I could not continue sitting when the CJI is standing. He took my notepad from my hands and put it aside on the desk, he then took my hands into his and told me that my hands smell nice, he then pinched my cheeks, he then put his arms around my waist from the front, he said, “I want this from you”. When I had stood up, I had put my hands behind my back. He hugged me around the waist, and touched me all over my body with his arms and by pressing his body against mine, and did not let go. He told me “hold me”, he did not let go of me even though I froze and tried to get out of his embrace by stiffening and moving my body away. Since he did not stop forcibly hugging me, I was forced to push him away from me with my hands. When I pushed him away, he hit his head against a bookshelf/cabinet on my left. My first thought was why would the CJI think he can do something like this to me. I immediately left the room and was in a state of complete shock and was unable to think clearly after this. I sat at my desk.”

After these incidents, eventually, she was thrown out of her job. Her husband and brothers-in-law were also thrown out of their job. Few false cases were also instituted against her family. Their lives were torn apart.

On January 10, 2019, the Station House Officer (SHO) of Tilak Marg Police Station, Naresh Solanki, called the woman and asked whether she would apologise or not. As she wanted to end her family’s trouble, so she agreed. Then, he drove her to the house of the CJI and where she apologised to the wife of the CJI in presence of the SHO and Mr. Deepak Jain.

After this, she thought that things will get better. But they became worse. On March 3, 2019, new FIR was registered by Naveen Kumar against the woman for taking a bribe. Later, she along with her husband and brothers-in-law was arrested and abused.

Ranjan Gogoi’s (CJI) side story:

Though there is no official statement released by the CJI clarifying this matter. But CJI in the interview, given after retirement, vehemently denied such allegations and said that such allegations are made to malign his image as well as to attack the independence and integrity of the Judiciary. He further said that such attempts are made by the people who are adversely affected by his judgements in Assam NRC, Ayodhya Ram Mandir case etc. He also said that enquiry was conducted under ‘In house Procedure’ and he gave file of the case by order to Justice S. A. Bobde (then second senior-most Judge) to handle the case. It was Justice S. A. Bobde who instituted a committee for enquiry.

Steps were taken by the Supreme Court to enquire into the matter:

April 20, 2019 – No one can be a Judge in his own

The Special Bench – comprising of Chief Justice of India Rajan Gogoi (Himself), Justice Arun Mishra and Justice Sanjiv Khanna – was constituted by CJI to take cognisance of “In Re: Matter of Great Public Importance Touching Upon the Independence of Judiciary.” After hearing the issue, the bench negated all the allegations.

This act of the apex court attracted a lot of criticism from lawyers, journalist, activists and academics. As, according to critique, this act was a clear violation of one of the three principles of Natural Justice i.e, Nemo judex in causa sua (No one can be a Judge on his own).

According to In house Procedure, CJI will prima facie enquire about the issue. But in this case, it would not be possible to invoke such rule as CJI is himself accused and according to the principles of Natural Justice i.e, No one can be a Judge on his own.

April 23, 2019 – Inquiry Committee

According to the In-House Procedure, 3 Supreme Court Judges committee shall be instituted by the CJI to enquire into allegations. Hence, the committee was constituted comprising of 3 members i.e., Justice NV Ramana, Justice Indira Banerjee and Justice SA Bobde.

The objection was raised by the woman that Justice NV Ramana is close to CJI. So, Justice NV Ramana recused and Justice Indu Malhotra took his place.

The objection was raised against the member of the committee. Since all the judges in the committee were junior to the CJI, so there could be chances of undue influence or favouring of CJI by his colleague or junior. Also, the woman in her affidavit had requested to form a committee of the retired women judges to enquire into the matter.

In the case of Additional District and Sessions Judge 'X' Vs. Registrar General, High Court of Madhya Pradesh (2014) (MP Judge case), Supreme Court observed that if a committee is constituted with members who are colleagues of the accused judge, then there might be a chance of showing favouritism by such members towards their colleague. On the other hand, there could also be a chance that such members might have animosity against his colleague and may use such a situation to equal his score because of animosity due to competitiveness, jealousy etc.

Moreover, as per sec. 4 of The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, (PoSH act, 2013) Internal Committee shall consist of at least 4 members. Among such 4 members:

a) One member shall be the Presiding officer who shall be a woman employed at a senior level at a workplace from amongst the employees.

b) At least 2 members amongst the employee who shall be committed to cause of women or have social work experience in this field or have legal knowledge about it.

c) One member shall be from NGOs or associations committed to the cause of women or a person familiar with the issues relating to sexual harassment.

Apart from all these, One of the three principles of the Natural Justice i.e, Justice should not only be done but manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done shall be complied as per Para 6 of the In house Procedure, 1999.

April 30, 2019 – Refusal by the Woman to Participate in the Committee Proceedings

On April 26, 2019, the internal committee started the enquiry. But on April 30, 2019 the woman refused to participate in the enquiry citing the following reasons (according to the press release given by the woman):

1. “I have not been allowed to have the presence of my lawyer/support person despite my impaired hearing, nervousness and fear.”

2. “There being no video or audio recording of the Committee proceedings”

3. “I have not been supplied even a copy of my statement as recorded on 26th and 29th April 2019.”

4. “I was not informed about the procedure this committee is following.”

There was no statement by the Supreme Court on this. But if we see under In House Procedure, Para 5 states that this enquiry shall not be formal where examination or cross-examination is conducted and parties are represented by respective lawyers. But Para 6 confers power to the enquiry committee to devise rules of the enquiry while keeping in mind the principle of Natural Justice.

On May 1, 2019, the Inquiry committee decided to hear the case ex parte.

On May 6, 2019, the Inquiry committee acquitted the CJI. The committee refused to make the report of the inquiry public.

After this, a lot of protests was held against this. But nothing happened.

In landmark case related to sexual harassment at workplace, Vishaka and Ors. V. State of Rajasthan (1992) [Vishaka case], the Supreme Court held that sexual harassment at a workplace is a violation of fundamental rights i.e., Art. 14, 15, 19(1)(g) and 21; DPSP i.e., Art. 42 and Fundamental duties i.e, Art. 51 of the Constitution of India, 1950.

As per the latest news report, the woman has got her job back and her husband and bothers in law have been reinstated in their jobs. The case of bribery is also dropped.

Martin Luther King, Jr. rightly said, “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. Imagine the gravity of that threat, if injustice is established in the Supreme Court itself!"

Author Views:

This was RAPE of the Constitution of India in the Daylight. For instance, on April 20, 2019, CJI himself constituted a special bench and presided over it which is totally against the principle of Natural Justice on which the whole In house Procedure is based. And then constituting committee which consists of 3 members who were colleague and junior of the CJI. If I negate all the allegations made by the woman against CJI and only look at the In house procedure followed by the Supreme Court, then also there are question marks on it being unbiased.

What could have been done and what should be done in future in these type of cases?

If any allegation against CJI is made, then a full-court meeting should be held to look into the matter and if they prima facie find that allegations are serious and need to be enquired. Then, a committee of retired judges should be constituted to look into the matter. During a period of enquiry, to remove suspicion of undue influence, CJI should take a leave. This was done during the enquiry constituted against CJI, where then Chief Justice of India, Justice Sabyasachi Mukherjee, asked the then sitting judge of the Supreme Court, Justice V. Ramaswami, to take a leave, so that enquiry could be done in the impartial and without undue influence. After this enquiry, Justice V. Ramaswami become the 1^st Supreme Court judge against whom an impeachment proceeding was initiated.

Removal of CJI from the office is required because the CJI office contains huge power, so there might be a chance that witnesses may be due fear do not come to light.

After completion of the enquiry, the report of the enquiry should not be made public keeping in words of the apex court in the case of Indira Jaising v. Registrar General (2003) that “a report made on such inquiry if given publicity will only lead to more harm than good to the institution as Judges would prefer to face inquiry leading to impeachment.”

If required, a removal proceeding should be initiated according to art. 124 (4) of the Constitution of India, 1950.

Author – Satwik Sharma

What are your views on this?

Put your answer in the comment box -

Sedition Law in India: History | Constitutionality | Famous Cases

2021-03-02T23:09:00.004-08:00

Why is there hue and cry over Sedition Law?

On February 13, 2021, A 22-year-old climate activist Disha Ravi who was booked u/s 124A/153/153A/120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) for being an accomplice in “global conspiracy” to commit violence using ‘Toolkit’ on Republic Day (January 26, 2021).

The Hon’ble Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Dharmender Rana of Patiala House Court Complex observed while going through the content of the ‘toolkit’, “The perusal of the said 'Toolkit' reveals that any call for any kind of violence is conspicuously absent.” Further while granting bail the Hon’ble ASJ stated, “Considering the scanty and sketchy evidence available on record, I do not find any palpable reasons to breach the general rule of ‘Bail’ against a 22 years old young lady, with absolutely blemish free criminal antecedents and having firm roots in the society, and send her to jail.”

There has been catena of cases such as the Arundhati Roy case, Hardik Patel case, Kanhiya Kumar case etc., where the government has used ‘Sedition Law’ as a weapon to restrict or subvert ‘Freedom of Speech and Expression’ of the citizen of India. According to the Crime data 2017-2019, released recently by the government-owned, National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB), Cases booked under Sedition Law increased to 165% (93 cases) in 2019 from 35 cases in 2016 while the rate of conviction dropped to 3.3% in 2019 from 33.3% in 2016.

Moreover, in 2018, The Law Commission, which is the Centre’s topmost advisory body on laws, headed by former Supreme Court judge, Justice B.S. Chauhan published a consultation paper recommending that it is time to re-think or even repeal the provision of sedition (Section 124A) from the Indian Penal Code.

Some people are demanding to strike down sec 124A of the IPC {Sedition Law}. Because it is hampering them to enjoy their fundamental rights conferred by the Supreme Law of the land i.e., Constitution of India, 1950. But on the other hand, some people are saying such a law is necessary to tackle or control anti-national activities.

To make you have the correct understanding of the current issue, this article will apprise you of the following:

History of Sedition Law in India
Definition of Sedition
Constitutional validity
Can a law be repealed solely on the ground of being abused?
Status of Sedition Law in the UK

History of Sedition Law in India

The section corresponding to sec. 124A was originally sec. 113 of Macaulay's Draft Penal Code of 1837-39, but the section was omitted from the Indian Penal Code as it was enacted in 1860. The reason for the omission from the Code as enacted is not clear, but perhaps the legislative body did not feel sure about its authority to enact such a provision in the Code.

The ‘Wahabi Movement’ was a revivalist movement. In India, the movement was led by Syed Ahmed Barelvi. The objectives of this movement were the purification of Islam and to establish Islamic rule. But in the wake of the Revolt of 1857, the objective of the movement became Jihad against the British i.e., to fight against Britishers. Due to the rise of the ‘Wahabi Movement’ in India, Britishers through Amendment act, 1870 penalised Sedition under sec 124A of IPC. So, Britishers by introducing ‘Sedition’ in IPC outlawed Speeches that excite disaffection towards the government. Thus, begins the chapter on the Sedition Law in India.

The Bangobasi case 1891 (Queen-Empress v. Jogendra Chunder Bose I.L.R. (1892) was the 1^st case to be instituted under Sedition Law or sec 124A of the IPC.

Definition of Sedition

Sec. 124A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 defines Sedition as, Whoever brings or attempts to bring -

1. Hatred or

2. Contempt or

3. Excite or attempts to excite disaffection

against government established by law through –

1. Words, either written or spoken, or

2. Signs or

3. Visible Representative or

4. Otherwise

Shall be punishable with -

1. Imprisonment for life, or

2. Imprisonment may extend up to 3 years, or

3. Fine, or

4. Both i.e., Imprisonment (as given in point 1 or 2) + Fine.

Explanation 1 of sec 124A states that ‘Disaffection’ includes disloyalty and all feelings of enmity. In the case of the Bangobasi case 1891, the court held, “Disaffection means a feeling contrary to affection, in other words, dislike or hatred. Disapprobation means simply disapproval.”

Explanation 2 of sec 124A states that strong protest against government measures to cancel or alter it, shall not attract provisions of the said section unless such protest against the government does not instigate hatred, contempt and excite or attempt to excite disaffection against government established by law.

Explanation 3 of sec 124A states that strong disapprobation of any act of administration or government will not come under said section unless such strong disapprobation does not instigate hatred, contempt and excite or attempt to excite disaffection against government established by law.

The Sedition is a Cognizable, non-bailable and non-compoundable offence.

The Freedom Fighters such as Bal Gangadhar Tilak who was convicted twice for committing Sedition and The Father of The Nation Mahatma Gandhi was also convicted for committing sedition. Mahatma Gandhi had published ‘Political sensitive’ articles in the weekly Journal named Young India (1919-1932) and after which he was convicted and sent to Jail for 6 years.

Constitutionality of Sedition Law

In the case of the Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar (1962) (Kedar Nath case), the Supreme Court held that the sec 124A of IPC is constitutionally valid.

Let see how in the above-stated case the Supreme Court held sec 124A constitutionally valid.

While deciding the aforementioned case, Supreme Court referred to the Federal Court judgement of the Niharendu Dutt Majumdar v. The King Emperor (1942) and several judgements of Judicial Committee of the Privy Council i.e., King-Emperor v. Sadashiv Narayan Bhalerao (1947), Wallace-Johnson v. The King (1940) etc.

In the case of the Niharendu Dutt Majumdar v. The King Emperor (1942), Federal Court held that “the acts or words complained of must either incite to disorder or must be such as to satisfy reasonable men that that is their intention or tendency.” In other words, if A (random person) used words to spread disaffection against the State and this disaffection has a tendency to cause public disorder i.e., mutiny, rebellion; then such person shall be charged for sedition, as per this definition. But if A’s words did not tend to cause Public disorder then he shall not be liable for Sedition.

But Judicial committee of the Privy Council overruled the above statement in the case of the King-Emperor v. Sadashiv Narayan Bhalerao (1947) (Sadashiv case) and reaffirmed the view expressed in Tilak’s case to the effect that “the offence consisted in exciting or attempting to excite in others certain bad feelings towards the Government and not in exciting or attempting to excite mutiny or rebellion, or any sort of actual disturbance, great or small.” In other words, if A (random person) used words to spread disaffection against the State and this disaffection did not have a tendency to cause public disorder i.e., mutiny, rebellion; then such person shall be liable for sedition. unlike as per the decision in the Niharendu Dutt case (Supra).

According to the Niharendu Dutt case (Supra), there shall be a threat to the security of the State as well as Public order to constitute ‘Sedition’. But according to the Sadashiv case (Supra), there may be a threat only to the security of state to constitute ‘Sedition’.

Now, you must be wondering what is the difference between ‘Security of State’ and ‘Public order’?

Here is your answer.

There is a public place in society. At that public place, few boys harass and eve-tease every girl who passes by that public place. Due to this, harassment and eve-teasing, girls of that society started to fear and avoid to pass by that public place. In this case, Public Order is harmed but the security of the state is not harmed.

On the other hand, there is a massive clash between two religious groups. In this case, security of the state and public order, both, are threatened.

So, there can be cases where only public order is under threat. But cases where there is a threat to security of the state, there will be also a threat to Public Order. In the landmark case of Kedarnath v. State of Bihar (1962), the court held that “the feeling of disloyalty to the Government established by law or enmity to it imports the idea of a tendency to public disorder by the use of actual violence or incitement to violence.”

In the landmark case of Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015), the Supreme Court cited the case of Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia v. State of Bihar and Ors. MANU/SC/0054/1965: (1966) 1 S.C.R. 709, in which the court held that it will be just to comprehend threat affecting to "public order" is of less gravity than those affecting "security of State". And further held that in two concentric circles, the outer circle is "Public Order" and the inner circle is "Security of State". It is then easy to see that an act may affect law and order but not public order just as an act may affect public order but not security of the State.

I am sure that you must have got a satisfactory answer to the difference between Security of State and Public order.

Let’s continue with the constitutionality of Sedition Law in India.

The Supreme Court, in the Kedar Nath case (Supra), was perplexed while deciding which court judgement it should consider in defining sedition. After going through a lot of cases, the apex court deduced that if they choose to consider definition from the Niharendu Dutt case (Supra), the definition of Sedition is outside the limit of the constitution if we read the definition only with art. 19(1) of the Constitution of India, 1950. Art 19 (1) gives ‘Freedom of Speech and Expression’ to the citizen of India. But If we read the definition of Sedition with Art. 19 (1) and Art. 19 (2), it is within the constitutional limit. Because Art. 19 (2) gives power to the legislature to put reasonable restrictions in the interest of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence.

But on the other side, if they consider the definition of Sedition according to the Niharendu Dutt case (Supra), If such definition is read with art. 19 (1) and 19 (2) of the Constitution of India, 1950, then it is within beyond the constitutional limit and which make it unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court, in the Kedar Nath case (Supra), in order to decide which case decision, it referred to R.M.D. Chamarbaugwalla v. The Union of India (1957), in which the court after analysing its previous judgement, as also of the Courts in America and Australia, held that “if the impugned provisions of a law come within the constitutional powers of the legislature by adopting one view of the words of the impugned section or Act, the Court will take that view of the matter and limit its application accordingly, in preference to the view which would make it unconstitutional on another view of the interpretation of the words in question.”

Thus, the Supreme Court, in the Kedar Nath case (Supra), opted for the decision of the Federal Court in the Sadashiv case (Supra). Further while summing up, it held, “It is also well settled that in interpreting an enactment the Court should have regard not merely to the literal meaning of the words used, but also take into consideration the antecedent history of the legislation, its purpose and the mischief it seeks to suppress.”

Hence, the Supreme Court, in the Kedar Nath case (Supra), held sec 124 A of IPC or Sedition Law in India constitutional.

While deciding the landmark case of Balwant Singh and Ors. vs. State of Punjab (1995), the Supreme Court held, “The casual raising of the slogans, once or twice by two individuals alone cannot be said to be aimed at exciting or attempt to excite hatred or disaffection towards the Government as established by law in India.”

Can a Law be repealed solely on the ground of being abused?

In the landmark judgement on the Freedom of Speech and Expression of Shreya Singhal vs. Union of India (2015), the Supreme Court referred to the judgement of Collector of Customs, Madras v. Nathella Sampathu Chetty and Anr. (1962), in which Supreme Court stated, “the possibility of the abuse of the powers under the provisions contained in any statute is no ground for declaring the provision to be unreasonable or void.”

The apex court, in the aforementioned case, further stated that the constitutional validity of the statute would have to be determined based on its provisions and the ambit of its operation as reasonably construed. If so judged it passes the test of reasonableness, the possibility of the powers conferred being improperly used is no ground for pronouncing the law itself invalid and similarly if the law properly interpreted and tested in the light of the requirements set out in Part III of the Constitution does not pass the test it cannot be pronounced valid merely because it is administered in a manner which might not conflict with the constitutional requirements.

Status of Sedition Law in the United Kingdom (UK)

In 2009, the British government passed the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 which abolished Sedition and Sedition Libel as an offence. This came into effect from January 12, 2010. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Ministry of Justice, Claire Ward, was quoted stating, “Sedition and seditious and defamatory libel are arcane offences – from a bygone era when freedom of expression wasn’t seen as the right it is today… The existence of these obsolete offences in this country had been used by other countries as justification for the retention of similar laws which have been actively used to suppress political dissent and restrict press freedom… Abolishing these offences will allow the UK to take a lead in challenging similar laws in other countries, where they are used to suppress free speech.”

New Zealand, Indonesia, South Korea and Japan have declared Sedition Law as unconstitutional in their respective countries.

Author views:

There is no need for Sec 124A of the IPC (Sedition Law) in India. There are already plenty of laws, such as the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967 (UAPA) etc., which are sufficient to tackle any urgent situation. Sec 2 (o) of the UAPA defines ‘Unlawful Activities’ which comprises of all the ingredients which are necessary to constitute offence of Sedition.

Moreover, UK from where this law originated itself had abolished and declared such law as arcane and called it as an instrument that was used by Britishers to suppress Freedom of Speech and Expression. And apart from UK countries like New Zealand, Indonesia, South Korea and Japan have already declared this law unconstitutional in their respective countries. So, now India should also take a step to abolish this draconian law.

The Central Government as well as State Government use such law to suppress Freedom of Speech and Expression. As, Sedition is a Cognizable, non-bailable and non-compoundable offence that makes a poor innocent person more vulnerable.

Author: Satwik Sharma

Is Constitutionality Intact with Love Jihad Laws???

2021-02-21T05:44:00.010-08:00

What is ‘Love Jihad’?

The term ‘Love Jihad’ is coined by propagators of Hindutva. According to such propagator, Muslim men convert, or attempt to convert, religion of Hindu girl into Muslim by means of allurement, misrepresentation, force or fraud etc.

On the contrary, activists say that there is no such thing, termed as Love Jihad, exist in society. It is just a propaganda campaign run by miscreants for political gain. Moreover, they say that nomenclature of Love Jihad is wrong. In the term ‘Love Jihad’, ‘Jihad’ means war or fight against something. So, ‘Love’ and ‘Jihad’ together means war or fight against love and there can never be a war against Love, as it is a divine word.

Many states government such as Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Himachal Pradesh etc. have enacted law against love jihad. Few states such as Orissa (1967), Arunachal Pradesh (1978) etc. already have anti conversion laws. This practise of converting people of one religion to another by force, undue influence etc. is being witnessed in one form or the other form from the ancient time. Many kings like Tipu Sultan, Aurangzeb forcibly converted Non - Muslim to Muslim. Moreover, attempt of forceful religion conversion of Indians into Christian by Britishers was one of the main reasons for Revolt of 1857 which was first war of independence for India.

In this article, we will in-depth analyse Love Jihad Law of Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Himachal Pradesh. These state’s love jihad laws have been challenged in the Supreme Court of India on the grounds of their constitutional validity. According to these laws, “No person shall convert or attempt to convert, either directly or otherwise, any other person from one religion to another by use of misrepresentation, force, undue influence, coercion, allurement or by any fraudulent means or by marriage nor shall any person abet or conspire such conversion.”

Punishment for Conversion by means of force, fraudulent means, undue influence etc.
	Himachal Pradesh	Madhya Pradesh	Uttar Pradesh	Uttarakhand
General Person- Imprisonment/ Fine	1-5 years + fine	1-5 years + Rs. 25,000 or more	1-5 years + Rs. 50,000 or more	1-5 years + fine
Minor, Women, SC/ST- Imprisonment/ Fine	2-7 years + fine	2-10 years + Rs. 50,000 or more	2-10 years + Rs. 25,000 or more	2-7 years + fine
Mass conversion	NA	5-10 years + Rs. 1,00,000 or more	3-10 years + Rs. 50,000 or more	NA
Conceal Religion to Marry	NA	3-10 years + Rs. 50,000 or more	NA	NA
Second or Subsequent offence again	NA	5-10 years + fine	Liable for every such subsequent offence to punishment not exceeding double the punishment provided under said Ordinance	NA

These four laws also make offence of conversion as non bailable and cognizable offence

How we are going to analyse?

All state acts are almost similar. So, we will see each state’s law from following point:

Who can complain?
Scope of terms such as fraud, allurement, undue influence etc.
Procedure for Conversion
Constitutionality of Acts
Burden of Proof
Reconversion

Let’s address each point one by one.

Who can complain? – As per section sec 4 of UP Love Jihad Law, “any aggrieved person, his/her parents, brother, sister, or any other person who is related to him/her by blood, marriage or adoption may lodge FIR of such conversion which contravenes the provision of section 3.” Many criticisms have been raised against this section. Why should anyone’s uncle or aunty have the right to lodge FIR? As, inter-religion marriage is still not accepted in our society. So, there will be many relative who will not be happy from such marriage and will try to stop it by lodging FIR. This right to lodge FIR should only be given to aggrieved person’s parents or real brother or sister and if in case such aggrieved person does not have parents or real brother or sister, then in that case legal guardian should have right to lodge FIR.

According section 4 of the Uttarakhand Love Jihad Law, any aggrieved person, his/her parents, brother, sister have the right to lodge FIR.

Provided that, where aggrieved person or his brother or sister are under the age of eighteen years, or are idiot or lunatic, or are from sickness or infirmity unable to make a complaint some other person or by any other person who is related to him by blood, marriage or adoption, a complaint may be made on his behalf with the leave of the Court.

Love Jihad laws of Madhya Pradesh and Himachal Pradesh do not have such provision.

Scope of terms such as fraud, allurement, undue influence etc.- Scope of the terms such as allurement, fraud, undue influence, force, coercion, misrepresentation and inducement is very wide according to definition given under the four acts. For example:

1. Allurement – This term is defined as “‘Allurement’ means and includes offer of any temptation in the form of any gift or gratification or material benefit, either in cash or kind or employment, free education in reputed school run by any religious body, easy money, better lifestyle, divine pleasure or otherwise”

Now, as per this definition,

Will giving bouquet as gift to another religion girl come under allurement?

Will going in car with a girl of another religion for long drive come under allurement?

Since, scope of the terms is wide. So, it can be used to cause trouble to innocents. There have been many instances reported in the news where people by means of such laws caused trouble to innocents couple.

Procedure for Conversion – All the four acts have almost similar procedure for conversion. Only time of submission of declaration application varies like for submitting declaration application by individual or priest etc. Let see step by step whole procedure for conversion.

Step 1: Person who desires to convert shall submit declaration to DM, or any other officer specially appointed for the same, in the prescribed form stating desire to convert voluntarily and with free consent.

Step 2: Religious Priest who intend to convert any person shall give notice, in such form as may be prescribe, for the same to DM of district where such conversion is proposed to be organised.

Step 3: District Magistrate shall conduct enquiry through police with regard to real intention, purpose and cause of the proposed religious conversion.

Contravention of Step 1 and Step 2 will render conversion null and void except in case of Madhya Pradesh love jihad law.

Uttar Pradesh Government goes one step further and provide provision for the Declaration post conversion of religion, under sec 9 of respective act. According to which, after converting, converted person has to send copy of declaration within 60 days, from date of conversion, to the District Magistrate of the district where he resides. After which District Magistrate will exhibit declaration, containing details such as Birth date, permanent address etc. on the notice board till date of confirmation of identity. Before the confirmation of identity every person is free to raise objection

Penalties for violating the Procedure for conversion
	Himachal Pradesh	Madhya Pradesh	Uttar Pradesh	Uttarakhand
Individual - Imprisonment / Fine	3 months – 1 year + fine	Nil + Nil	6 months – 3 years + Rs. 10,000 or more	3 months – 1 year + fine
Convertor - Imprisonment / Fine	6 months – 2 years + fine	3 – 5 years + Rs. 50,000 or more	1-5 years + Rs. 25,000 or more	6 months – 2 years + fine

Constitutionality of Acts: Various social activists, lawyers and politicians have said that Love Jihad Laws of aforementioned states violates fundamental rights such as Art. 14, Art. 15 (1), Art. 21 and Art. 25 (1) of the Constitution of India, 1950.

Article 14 states that state will not treat any person unequally and will also provide equal protection of law. The law would apply to people of all religions equally and would ban any kind of religious conversions for marriage. Merely because a law applies to persons of all religions, would not make the law fulfil the guarantee on equality. In Loving v. Virginia (1967), too, merely because the law banned interracial marriages by persons of all races, the law was not held to be equal. The Uttar Pradesh ordinance violates the constitutional guarantee of equality because making religious conversions the sole ground for terming the marriage as void or for imposing the onerous requirements that parties in an inter-faith marriage have to comply with, such as giving prior notice of conversion and a post-conversion notice of declaration, is discrimination on the ground of religion. Our equality guarantees in the Constitution demand that all persons have equal protection of the law under Article 14. This goes together with the guarantee of non-discrimination under Art 15 which mandates that the state shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them. Imposing such restrictions on marriage only on the ground of religion amounts to discrimination and a violation of the right to equality.

Article 21 states that no person shall be deprive of life and personal liberty. Under the sub heading of ‘Procedure of Conversion’, I have already explained how person who desires to convert into another religion has to submit declaration to DM and enquiry will be conducted by police. Moreover, under Uttar Pradesh’s love jihad law under sec 9 (2), it is mandatory for the DM to exhibit such declaration on the office notice board which is accessible by everyone. As per sec 9 (3) of the UP’s Love Jihad Law, such declaration contains details such as date of birth, permanent address, and the present place of residence, father’s/husband’s name, the religion to which the convert originally belonged and the religion to which he has converted, date and place of conversion and nature of process gone through for conversion. All these clearly infringe right to life, person liberty and right to privacy enshrined under art. 21.

In the case of KS Puttaswamy vs Union of India (2017), Supreme court held that Right to privacy is the fundamental right under art. 21 and it also said that it is the integral part of the personal liberty. Further held that “the constitutional right to the freedom of religion Under Article 25 has implicit within it the ability to choose a faith and the freedom to express or not express those choices to the world.”

In case of R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu (1994), the court while explaining Right to Privacy held that it is a right to be let alone and a citizen has the right to safeguard the privacy of his own, his family, marriage, procreation, motherhood, childbearing and education among other matters. And also, further held that no one can publish anything concerning the above matters without his consent whether truthful or otherwise and whether laudatory or critical.

Sec 6 of Acts of MP, UP, Uttarakhand and sec 5 of act of HP states that “Any marriage which was done for the sole purpose of conversion by the man of one religion with the woman of another religion either by converting himself before or after marriage or by converting the woman before or after marriage may be declared null and void by the Family court”.

Now, as per art. 25 (1) all person shall have freedom of conscience which means everyone is free to choose any religion or faith as well as not to choose any religion or faith. If any person chose any faith or religion, then he is free to profess, practice and propagate it. Art. 25(1) encompasses all atheist, theist, agnostic. However, such freedom is subjected to public order, morality and health.

Suppose there is A (Hindu male) and B (Muslim female). Both A and B want to marry each other. But A’s parents want their son to marry only to Hindu woman. Now, as B believes in all religion or B is secular. B says that her religion is Indian and her holy book is Constitution of India. For her, it does not matter whether she remains Muslim or converts to Hindu. Same are the views of B’s parent. Then, if B converts to Hindu religion with free consent.

What is harm in this? As, Art. 25(1) confers her freedom of conscience.

Uttar Pradesh Government claims that they enacted such law on the basis of Allahabad High Court judgement in Noor Jahan case [Smt Noor Jahan Begum @ Anjali Mishra and Another vs. State of U.P. and others (2014)] and Priyanshi case [Priyanshi @ Km. Shamren and Others V. State of U.P. and Another (2020)]. In Noor Jahan case and Priyanshi case, Allahabad High Court held that “Religious conversion Just for the purpose is Unacceptable”. But later in the case of Salamat Ansari & another Vs. State of U.P. & another (2020), Allahabad High Court held that “We hold the judgements in Noor Jahan and Priyanshi as not laying good law”

Government should also amend sec 6 and 7 of the Special Marriage Act, 1955 (SMA). According to sec 6 (2) and 6(3) of SMA, it is mandatory to exhibit notice on conspicuous board at DM office in the district of both parties for 30 days. Within such 30 days any person can raise objection as per section 7 of SMA. Such provisions make things worse for the couple of different religion to get married under SMA. There have been many cases reported in news where people take information of couple who belong to different religion from notice board and then harass them. So, they find it easier to first convert to one religion and then get married according to such religion’s custom and tradition.

Burden of Proof – As per sec 12 of acts of UP, HP, MP and sec 13 of act of Uttarakhand, burden of proof lies on accused. The problem in this is how anyone can proof that he wishes to convert his religion voluntarily and with free consent and without any force, coercion, undue influence or allurement. No criteria are given for proving that conversion is voluntarily and with free consent. As per opinion of activists, lawyer etc. burden of proof should be on complainant.

Reconversion – In all the four acts reconversion is exempted from the provisions of this sections. So, if anyone by means of force, coercion, undue influence or allurement reconverts one person to his parental religion, then it will be not considered as offence.

Author views:

Up till now no strong evidence have been found which corroborate theory of Love Jihad. In investigation conducted by National Investigation Agency (NIA) during Hadiya case found no evidence of love jihad. But as per few news channels there are documentaries in which victim tells how she became victim to Love Jihad. Also, in our country history there are number of instances where conversion is done forcibly. So, there is a need of law which penalise such forceful conversion. But it has to be kept in mind while legislating that no fundamental rights are violated, as they are being violated in current love jihad laws.

According to me, government should make following amendments without which such laws are draconian laws:

Firstly, all religion should abolish rule according to which if two couple belong same religion then only, they can get married according to rituals and customs of religion.

For example: A (Girl) and B (Boy) want to marry each other. A is Muslim and B is Hindu. Now, if they want to marry according to Hindu custom, then they cannot do so. Because according to rules of Hindu religion, only if both A and B belong to Hindu, then only they can get married as per Hindu rituals and customs.

Similar rule exists in all religion. Hence, this rule should be abolished

No declaration should be required and no details should be exhibited on the notice board. Also, no enquiry shall be conducted unless complaint is made.

Right to lodge complaint should be given to the person who wishes to convert or has already converted. Right to Privacy is the fundamental right and no one else should be allowed to interfere with it.

Burden of Proof should be decided by court after the enquiry on whom burden of proof will lie.

Government should amend sec 6 & sec 7 of Special Marriage act, 1954. As, it is doing no good but facilitating miscreant to harass couples.

Government should also promote inter-religion marriage. It will help to reduce differences between different religion and will promote cordial relations. As result of which, discrimination on grounds of religion will reduce.

Author – Satwik Sharma

Farm Acts: From Myth to Reality

2021-01-01T03:10:00.007-08:00

Parliament enacted 3 Acts related to sale and production of farming produce in September, 2020. After which farmers from Punjab and Haryana started protesting against acts and called such acts as “Black Law”. They were later joined by farmers from all around the nation. According to them, these laws make them more prone to getting exploited.

According to Central Government, these laws empower, protect and help farmers to explore more opportunity to flourish. They say that The Farmers’ Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) Act, 2020 (FPTCA, 2020) liberates farmers by giving them the freedom to sell anywhere and The Farmers (Empowerment and Protection) Agreement on Price Assurance and Farm Services Act, 2020 (FAPAFS, 2020) provides for contract farming, under which farmers will produce crops as per contracts with corporate investors for a mutually agreed remuneration. The Central Government also legislated amendment act i.e., the Essential Commodities (Amendment) Act, 2020 (EC) which adds sub-section (1A) under section 3 of the the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and thereby abolish stock limit of foodstuffs, including cereals, pulses, potato, onions, edible oilseeds and oils.

Many issues are being raised regarding Farms Bill. After lot of research, I have sorted few issues which are in the limelight and they are being reported by newspaper as well as news channels very frequently. Those are:

Ø Threat to Farmer’s Agriculture land

Ø Danger from Contract farming

Ø Removal of MSP (Minimum Support Price)

Ø Constitutionality of Acts passed

Ø No Judicial Intervention

Ø Removal of APMC (Agricultural Produce Market Committee) Yard

Through this article I have tried to show that whether these issues are genuine one or they are just there for political gain. Let start addressing issue one by one.

o Threat to farmers’ agriculture land – There is a fear among farmers that corporate investors will take their land. They are saying that corporate investors will enter with them into a contract which will be having many terms and conditions. Among these T & C, there might be a clause of which non-compliance might result in farmer losing his land. As, many farmers are illiterate and poor so they will not be able to understand such terms and conditions and also, they do not have money to hire good lawyer in this regard.

Section 8 of FAPAFS, 2020 clearly states that in framing agreement there shall be no such clause which have the condition of “any transfer, including sale, lease and mortgage of the land or premises of the farmer”. Further, section 8 subclause (b) states “raising any permanent structure or making any modification on the land or premises of the farmer, unless the Sponsor agrees to remove such structure or to restore the land to its original condition, at his cost, on the conclusion of the agreement or expiry of the agreement period, as the case may be.

Provided that where such structure is not removed as agreed by the Sponsor, the ownership of such structure shall vest with the farmer after conclusion of the agreement or expiry of the agreement period, as the case may be”

Moreover, Section 15 of the FAPAFS, 2020, it has been stated that if there is default from the side of farmer then no order can be passed Sub Divisional Authority and Appellate Authority to take land of the farmer.

o Danger from Contract Agreement - Contract Farming means farmers and sponsor (buyer of farmer produce) enter into agreement prior to the production or rearing of any farming produce of a predetermined quality, in which the Sponsor agrees to purchase such farming produce from the farmer and to provide farm services. Also, term ‘Contract Agreement’ is defined u/s Sec 2 (g) FAPAFS, 2020. As, price of the farming produce is predetermined in the contract. Farmers have fear that if afterward price of farming produce increases, then farmer will have to bear lose.

In sec 5 subclause (b) of FAPAFS, 2020, it is stated that farmer may fix a price in a contract and attach it to a condition that if price of the farming produce increases later, then increased price shall be considered. The method of determining such additional amount shall be annexed to the farming agreement.

o Removal of MSP (Minimum Support Price) – Let us first understand what is MSP? MSP is minimum value of farming produce decided by government agency named Commission for Agricultural Costs and Prices (CACP). Farmers have to sell their farming produce at the value of MSP or above MSP. If farmers are not able to sell others their farming produce at the value of MSP, then government buys from them.

The Centre currently fixes MSPs for 23 farm commodities — 7 cereals (paddy, wheat, maize, bajra, jowar, ragi and barley), 5 pulses (chana, arhar/tur, urad, moong and masur), 7 oilseeds (rapeseed-mustard, groundnut, soyabean, sunflower, sesamum, safflower and Niger seed) and 4 commercial crops (cotton, sugarcane, copra and raw jute).

People are afraid that through these acts’ government will remove MSP. But in these three acts MSP is mentioned no-where. All three acts are completely silent on this matter.

Earlier to these acts, there was no act which had provision related to MSP. Government through notification in official gazette declare MSP.

o Constitutionality of Acts Passed – Many opposition parties as well as few lawyers are saying that these acts are unconstitutional. Some are saying that acts impinge to Federalism. Some other people are saying that procedure which is required to be followed to enact any law, was not followed.

Supreme Court in few cases had held that constitutionality of any act can be questioned on two bases:

(1) If its content is inconsistent with provisions of constitution.

(2) If procedure to pass law is not complied.

Issue is being raised entry 14, 26, 27 and 28 of State list under Schedule 7 of Constitution of India, 1949 clearly provides for agriculture and its trade and commerce to be exclusively subject matter of the state. So, Central government has no power to legislate on these subject-matter.

If we see entry 33 of Concurrent list under Schedule 7 of Constitution of India, 1949 which also contains trade and commerce in, and production, supply and distribution of food stuff. As per art 246 of the Constitution of India, 1949, State as well as Centre can legislate on the subjects of concurrent list. And Article 254 (1) states that in case of repugnancy between state law and centre law, then centre law shall be enforced and repugnant part of the state law will be void.

In case of Hoechst Pharmaceutical Ltd. v. State of Bihar (1983), Supreme court held that ‘If such overlapping exists in any particular case, the state law will be ultra vires because of the non obstante clause in Art 246 (1) read with the opening words ‘subject to’ in Art. 246(3).’

o No Judicial Intervention – Issue is being raised that civil court have been barred to take cognisance of the dispute if it arises. Section 15 of the FPTCA, 2020 states “No civil court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceedings in respect of any matter, the cognizance of which can be taken and disposed of by any authority empowered by or under this Act or the rules made thereunder.” Section 19 of the FAPAFS, 2020 states “No civil Court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceedings in respect of any dispute which a Sub-Divisional Authority or the Appellate Authority is empowered by or under this Act to decide and no injunction shall be granted by any court or other authority in respect of any action taken or to be taken in pursuance of any power conferred by or under this Act or any rules made thereunder.”

In case of any dispute, ‘Conciliation Board’ will try to resolve dispute within 30 days. If no settlement is made between parties to the dispute then Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM) will pass order within 30 days from the date of application filed. If any party to the dispute aggrieved by the order of SDM, then they can prefer appeal to Add. Collector or Collector. Moreover, Sec 18 of FPTCA, 2020 and Sec 13 of the FAPAFS, 2020 provide protection from any suit, prosecution or other legal proceeding against the Central Government, the State Government, the Registration Authority, the Sub-Divisional Authority, the Appellate Authority or any other person for anything which is in good faith done or intended to be done under the provisions of this Act or any rule made thereunder.

o Removal of APMC (Agricultural Produce Market Committee) Yard – There is no provision in any of the three acts which provide to remove APMC. Sec 3 of the Farmers’ Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) Act, 2020 states remove the trade and commerce barrier which was put by the state APMC earlier. According to earlier state APMC act, farmer have to sell their farming produce to the APMC first and also to sell it within state APMC. Now, there is no such restriction. Farmers can sell their farming produce anywhere in the country. Moreover, they sell it using internet in the e-market.

Author Views

Idea seems to be great. The country is in need of such reforms. Removal of restrictions which are imposed by the state APMC act is great, as it gives opportunity to the private players to enter and increases competition in the market. As result farmers get chance to explore new opportunities. However, there are some serious issues which needs to be address by the government which are as follows:

Government should remove bar imposed on civil court as well as add provisions for speedy trial and also waive off court fees for farmers.

As MSP is prevailing from the long time, so government should add provision in the act assuring MSP. Also, increase the scope of the MSP which is currently only limited to 35 crops (aforementioned). MSP should be decided for ‘farmers’ produce’, as per defined under 2(h) and 2(c) of FAPAFS, 2020 and FPTCA, 2020 respectively.

Procedure for registration of the sponsor should be more-strict. According to Sec 5 of the FAPAFS, 2020, PAN card along with few other documents are required to get register for trading and commerce. Because there had been many cases reported where people were caught carrying fake PAN cards.

Government should appoint few lawyers who will make contract for the farmers. As, there are many poor farmers who cannot afford to hire good lawyers. Contract between farmers and buyer should also be register by Collector.

Government should also open an account in which money, fixed in the contract, is to be deposited by the buyers of the farmers’ produce at time of signing of the contract. Such money will be given to farmer after buyer gives his confirmation of acceptance of farmers’ produce.

Author – Satwik Sharma