Vikas Singh
Everyone in the country was eyeing the Supreme Court’s decision regarding the Agricultural Law. Supreme Court gave a verdict on the ongoing farmers’ protests and the proposed Agricultural Law. At the hearing on Monday, the Supreme Court stayed the new agricultural laws till the next order.
The court has asked the government to put the agricultural law on hold for some time. Also, it asked to make a committee to discuss the matter.However, the Farmers’ Union disregarded the Supreme Court’s proposal to make a committee about this matter. The Farmer’s Union commented on this proposal saying that they are not in favor of forming any committee on the subject and want the law to be banned entirely. After the hearing on Monday, the nation was
in a dilemma whether the Supreme Court would ban the law completely or only put it on hold for the moment.
Prior to the hearing in the Supreme Court, WebDunia has a conversation with Constitution Expert Subhash Kashyap about the Agricultural law and the hearing being conducted for it. Subhash Kashyap said in the conversation that the Supreme Court can decline the law in 3 situations –
1. The law made by the parliament violates the fundamental rights mentioned
in the constitution.
2. The law formed by the parliament talks about a right that does not come under
its power. A law that was made with powers beyond the parliament’s
rights.
3. When there is a dispute between the Centre and the State on the law made
by the parliament.
In the conversation with WebDunia, Subhash Kashyap says that in the making of the Agricultural Law, nobody’s fundamental rights were violated, neither the parliament went outside of its rights to make this law nor there is any dispute going on in between the centre and the state about it. Whereas, on the contrary, the issue is raised against the protests that are a violation of others’ fundamental rights.
Subhash Kashyap says, the Supreme Court could neither stop the Agricultural Law nor could ban it. Now it was the Supreme Court’s decision. However, according to the Constitution, he believed the aforementioned three reasons were the only situations in which the court could declare the law illegal.
Talking about the hearing on Monday, Subhash Kashyap says that, although this doesn’t come under the Supreme Court’s powers but since it’s related to publicinterest, the Supreme Court interfered.
