SC pulls up Centre, says extremely disappointed with negotiation process between govt & farmers

Supreme Court orders Patanjali to publish prominent apologies in newspapers for misleading ads --- File Photo

The Supreme Court Monday pulled up the Centre for its handling of the farmers protest against the new farm laws saying it is “extremely disappointed” with the way negotiations between them were going and it will constitute a committee headed by a former Chief Justice of India to resolve the impasse.

Indicating amply that it may go to the extent of staying the implementation of the contentious farm laws, the apex court refused to grant extra time to the Centre to explore the possibility of amicable solution saying it has already granted the government a “long rope”.

   

“We have given you long rope, Mr Attorney General, please don’t lecture us on patience,” a bench headed by Chief Justice S A Bobde said.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told the bench, also comprising Justices A S Bopanna and V Ramasubramanian, that the top court has made “harsh observations” regarding handling of the situation by the government.

“That was the most innocuous factual thing for us to say,” the bench said.

The apex court, which said it will pass orders on the issue concerning farm laws and farmers’ protest in part in the matter, asked the parties to suggest two-three names of former CJIs including former CJI R M Lodha who can head the apex court-appointed panel.

At the outset, the bench said, “What is going on? States are rebelling against your laws”.

“We are extremely disappointed with the negotiation process,” it said, adding, “We don’t want to make any stray observations on your negotiations but we are extremely disappointed with the process.”

The apex court, which was hearing a clutch of pleas challenging the new farm laws as well as the ones raising issues related to the ongoing agitation at Delhi borders, said it is not talking about the repeal of these farm laws at the moment.

“This is a very delicate situation,” the bench said, adding, “There is not a single petition before us which says that these farm laws are beneficial”.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

sixteen − 11 =