The Aryavarth Express
Agency (New Delhi): The Supreme Court has issued notice on a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking various directions to the Union government to address agrarian distress in India. The key prayers in the petition include:
1. Implementation of the National Policy for Farmers, 2007 and recommendations of the National Commission of Farmers, 2004
2. Establishing a price stabilization fund to support farmers during price fluctuations
3. Levying an agricultural cess for poor farmers
A bench of Justices **Kant and KV Viswanathan**, while issuing notice, expressed reservations about the lack of research and data in the petition. The bench questioned the need for a price stabilization fund when farmers are already getting minimum support price (MSP).
The court also cautioned that the petition seemed to be espousing the cause of sugar factories rather than farmers. It directed the petitioner’s counsel to provide supporting materials and avoid vague and evasive prayers.
The PIL, filed by Agnostos Theos, Managing Director of The Sikh Chamber of Commerce (TSCC), contended that the Union government has failed to take effective measures to end agrarian distress and implement the National Policy for Farmers, 2007, which has been accepted but not acted upon for over 15 years.
It highlighted that employment generation in the agricultural sector has reduced to almost 0% and farmers need assistance to come out of debt and poverty traps through loan waivers, on par with those given to corporates.
The petition further alleged that India’s negotiations under the World Trade Organization (WTO) did not consider the impact on Indian farmers, leading to the absence of a price stabilization fund unlike in the US and EU. It also argued that the government allows cheap imports of agricultural products without providing adequate subsidies, threatening farmers’ livelihoods.
Earlier, the same petitioner had filed a plea seeking directions to consider the demands of protesting farmers and allow them to move to Delhi, which was withdrawn after the bench expressed reservations about the manner of filing.
