SC expresses concern over deadlock on farm laws, to take up matter on January 11

Solicitor General Mehta said that some healthy talks were going on between the Centre and farmers and the hearing should not be taken up immediately

The Supreme Court Wednesday said it would hear on January 11 a batch of pleas challenging the new farm laws as also the ones raising issues related to the ongoing farmers' protest at Delhi borders.

"There is absolutely no improvement in the situation," a bench presided over by Chief Justice S A Bobde remarked, even as Attorney General K K Venugopal said that there was a good chance of parties reaching some conclusion in near future.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, for his part, said that some healthy talks were going on between the Centre and farmers and the hearing should not be taken up immediately.

Venugopal said that the filing of response may foreclose avenues of negotiation.

The bench, also comprising Justices A S Bopanna and V Ramasubramanian agreed to the suggestion and put the matter for consideration on Monday.

Advocate Sharma challenged the validity of the 1954 amendment which brought the subject of agriculture into the concurrent list, permitting the Centre to bring about laws on farming.

Hundreds of farmers have been protesting and blocked the Delhi borders for over a month demanding a repeal of three farm laws. Even after the seven rounds of talks between the farmers unions and the Union ministers, deadlock continued.

On December 17, the top court had said that it would not intervene in the farmers' protest issue, saying the agitation along Delhi borders can continue as long as public order is maintained.

But the court emphasised that agitators must hold talks to resolve the issues.

In a written order passed on a batch of petitions against the ongoing protest, the bench had then said, "We are of the view at this stage that the farmers’ protest should be allowed to continue without impediment and without any breach of peace either by the protesters or the police."

The court had also suggested forming an independent panel for "an effective solution".