Press "Enter" to skip to content

Putting Farm Laws On Hold Sets A Dangerous Precedent, Say Legal Experts

If the highest courtroom discovered the matter so grave, it ought to have arrange a bench to listen to the case.


  • In future, can a mere protest, nevertheless intense, result in a keep on a legislation?
  • The Supreme Court’s energy to place a maintain laws shouldn’t be in query.
  • If obligatory, the courtroom ought to have arrange a bench and heard the case.

New Delhi:

The Supreme Court’s resolution yesterday to placed on maintain three recently-legislated Central farm legal guidelines might have set a harmful precedent whose implications will largely present up solely in future, authorized consultants imagine. While the highest courtroom was effectively inside its rights to “stay” legal guidelines handed by Parliament, what might be a matter of concern is that it might have come to conclusions primarily based on “misconceived emotions”.

The authorities has been negotiating with unions representing 1000’s of farmers, particularly from Punjab, Haryana, Uttar Pradesh, and different states of India over the three legal guidelines handed in September. While a number of of the problems have been mentioned and options to those largely agreed upon, it’s the situation of withdrawal of legal guidelines that neither occasion is prepared to provide in on, resulting in a impasse.

Such a impasse turning into a purpose for judicial intervention, not to mention the holding in abeyance of legal guidelines handed by Parliament, might grow to be problematic, based on consultants.       

“The Supreme Court has taken the view (in some cases) that there can be a stay on legislation under some conditions. Normally the courts do not stay regularly legislation merely because its challenge is pending, but the power to stay the legislation based on the consequences that may arise is clear and the power vested. Therefore, the exercise of the power cannot be doubted,” stated Sidharth Luthra, former Additional Solicitor General.

Yet, can a mere protest justify such intervention?


“It is a dangerous thing and consequences are serious. In future, (if/when) the Centre introduces some laws and if protests happen across the country, can the law be stayed? The Supreme Court decided on misconceived emotion. The only (cause for) the deadlock was ‘repeal’ which is beyond the court’s jurisdiction,” stated Rakesh Dwivedi, a Senior Advocate on the Supreme Court.

“It is constitutionally obligatory for the Supreme Court to examine the law and only if it comes to a conclusion that, prima facie, the law is not right, can it order a stay. Here, the court has stayed it emotionally,” Mr Dwivedi stated.

The Senior Advocate stated that if the courtroom had discovered the matter so grave, it ought to have constituted a bench and heard the case.

Be First to Comment

    Leave a Reply

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

    %d bloggers like this: