Skip to main content

farm law being Repealed again

 Farm law being Repealed again.


The three farms law which announced due to which there was a lot of agitation and chaos, protest was all around the Delhi and other states. The prime minister Narendra Modi proclaimed to resolve all the disputes relates the farm law bill. 

They are certain things we need to know: 

  1. why was objective of the bill to be introduced? 

  2. what was reason behind the protests of farmers?

  3. did any response was given by the government authorities, how supreme court deal with this case?

  4.  what will be the process to repeal the farm law?

In existing system has some government related mandies were are all under monopoly, and they want to break the monopoly policy rule

So that farmers could privately sell their own fruits and vegetables by themselves. 

Secondly to make a legal frame work for the farmers so that they could enter into the contract with the companies and also do the work with them.

Thirdly the food articles and farm produce had restrictions on it to be removed on which the government had laid on them according to different states, so that agriculture business people also could stock the food articles.

If these farm law has made for the farmers benefit then what was the reason behind the protest of the farmers on this new bill.

First reason is 

That every state has its own maids and funds that is APMC mandi through which states gets funds from them, by those funds they do some of states work like providing electricity, forgive the loans taken, building roads and bridges. In such situations the three farms law which was made they want built a parallel path with APMC to make a new Mandi, but by this APMC will suffer a lot in this, the funds which they were get getting also get suffered and how the state will administer will get affected.

Also, the reason was middle men who were working in the APMC will be unemployed (arthiyas). Secondly the reason, is here farmers says that in starting 3 to 4 years it may be profitable for them but what if these APMC Mandi will totally get closed down. The minimum support and protection which they were get right now will not be provided then, due to this the private Mandi setting person will do arbitrariness with them and situation will get worsen then, this was speculation made by the farmers.

Thirdly was reason for bring this law was to help the farmers to enter into the contract with the private organisation gain some amount, buy and sell their goods without any medium. But farmers had a fear that they don't have the bargaining powers with the private companies and not able to negotiate the contract with them easily, not able to understand the fine print of the contract in that situation the private players may take benefit of this, it can be the breach of the contract in further after entering into the contract. There could also be taken away by them. 

Fourthly the government didn't take any consultant from farmers association and by themselves they had decided to make and applied the bill over the farmers. This made the farmers being neglect by the government on taking serious decision.

June 5th 2020 the 3-farm bill was introduced, and in Sep. 25th 2020 farmers started protesting against the government across India in streets.

In September 27th 2020 presidential assent given to the farm bill and the bill becomes farm law. In November 25th 2020 ‘Delhi chalo’ movement started by the farmers by Punjab and Haryana farmers. By seeing the situation on 3rd and 5th December 2020 1st round of talks was set between farmers and government, but nothing happened. Then central government sends proposal that they ready to amend these 3 farms laws but farmers unions says that laws should be Repealed it. Then in 11th December 2020 Bhartiya Kiran union moved the SC against the farm’s laws. After this supreme court file, a case on farm law and on 12 Jan 2021 Supreme Court stopped the implementation if law of the farmers and form 4 committee setup to find the solution.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Section 58B of The Advocates Act - Special provision relating to certain disciplinary proceedings

 Section 58B The Advocates Act Description (1) As from the 1st day of September, 1963, every proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate of a High Court shall, save as provided in the first proviso to sub-section (2), be disposed of by the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if the existing advocate had been enrolled as an advocate on its roll. (2) If immediately before the said date, there is any proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate pending before any High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), such proceeding shall stand transferred to the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if it were a proceeding pending before the corresponding Bar Council under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 56: Provided that where in respect of any such proceeding the High Court has received the finding of a Tribunal constituted under section 11 of the Indian B
Post a Comment
Read more

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be aske
1 comment
Read more

Rules as to delivery of goods

                             Rules as to delivery of goods Section 2(2) of Sale of Goods Act defines ‘delivery’ as a ‘voluntary transfer of possession from one person to another.’ Thus, if the transfer of goods is not voluntary and is taken by theft, by fraud, or by force, then there is no ‘delivery. Moreover, the ‘delivery’ should have the effect of putting the goods in possession of the buyer. The essence of the delivery is a voluntary transfer of possession of goods from one person to another. There is no delivery of goods where they are obtained at pistol point or theft. 1. Mode of Delivery: According to Section 33, delivery of goods sold may be made by doing anything which the parties agree shall be treated as delivery or which has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the buyer or of any person authorized to hold them on his behalf. Delivery of goods may be actual, symbolic or constructive. 2. Expenses of Delivery: According to Section 36(5), unless otherwise agree
Post a Comment
Read more