Neither the government nor the farmers who are protesting against the three new farm laws had approached the Supreme Court for mediation on the issues of dispute between them. The main issue before the court, raised in some petitions, concerned the constitutional validity of the laws, but these were not filed by the agitating farmers. But the court sidestepped that issue, which is its main remit, and stepped into a political thicket which is unfamiliar territory for it.
Its decision to stay the implementation of the laws and to set up a four-member committee which would talk to both sides and make recommendations on how to proceed further is not a strictly judicial, or even a judicious, decision. Even if the court’s intentions are not questioned, its procedure is questionable and its impact uncertain. The court blamed the government for its failure to reach an agreement with the farmers, but that is no reason for the court itself to act the way it did.
By appointing a committee to study the legislation and by announcing that it would pass orders based on its recommendations, the court was making a judgement on government policy. The farmers had from the beginning rejected any court intervention in the matter because it involved policy issues. Only a few days ago, another bench of the court had said in the case concerning the Central Vista project that it was not competent to judge policy matters.
It is also not clear how the committee’s exertions will help to solve the issue. The farmers have rejected it and declared that they will not talk to it. It is not known how the court selected the members of the committee. But all its members are known to be supporters of the farm laws. They would therefore lack credibility, which is essential in any exercise like this.
It may be noted that the committee will be doing the work that the government did not want a parliamentary committee to do. The government’s view of the committee is not known and its likely responses to the recommendations cannot be predicted now.
It will take two months or more for the panel to formulate and submit its recommendations. Will the court be in a position to enforce them if both sides or one side rejects them, especially because they will be about the substance of the laws and not about their legality? While a negotiated resolution of the dispute is good, there is unsolicited mediation here. The court seems to have gone about it the wrong way, upsetting the institutional balance in the system and weakening itself. The government’s hope that it may not be embarrassed by a farmers’ march to Delhi on Republic Day may also be belied.