All legal options open if state farm Bill refused assent: Manish Tewari

Punjab and few other Congress-ruled states have passed their own farm Bills to bypass the recent central farm law

Manish Tewari, a well-known lawyer and Lok Sabha MP (Congress) from Anandpur Sahib, Punjab, tells Aditi Phadnis state governments are perfectly justified in passing their own farm laws. Edited excerpts:

Laws passed by the Assemblies in Congress-ruled states do not seek to specify an MSP for agri-commodities, instead they extend areas where procurement can be done, thus increasing the scope of tax collection. What’s to stop FCI and other procurement agencies from buying from other states more cheaply?

MSP is fixed by the central government and not state governments. The state advises a state-administered price for some of the crops like sugarcane that are not covered in the 23 MSP crop paradigm. States cannot allow an organised and well-regulated system that has held the field since 1966 for an arbitrary and whimsical architecture that these farm laws seek to create. They will demolish the socio-economic ethos of the food producing states, hence the decision to extend the acreage of mandi areas.

The laws are pending with the governor. Is there a time-limit for the governor to give his assent?

There is no constitutional time limit but the governor should not inordinately delay a legislation.

In a situation like this, where a state passes its own law because the central law does not suit its situation/ requirements, what are the legal and other options open to it?

If the governor, the central government and the president do not give assent to the state Bills, all legal options are open.

The state has the constitutional right to amend a Central Law. Article 254(2) of the Constitution states that “where a law made by the Legislature of a State with respect to one of the matters enumerated in the concurrent List contains any provision repugnant to the provisions of an earlier law made by Parliament or an existing law with respect to that matter, then, the law so made by the Legislature of such State shall, if it has been reserved for the consideration of the President and has received his assent, prevail in that State: Provided that nothing in this clause shall prevent Parliament from enacting at any time any law with respect to the same matter including a law adding to, amending, varying or repealing the law so made by the Legislature of the State”.

Therefore, what has been done by Punjab and Rajasthan is constitutionally kosher.

Since the central law impinges upon the jurisdiction exclusively reserved for states enumerated in the state list in the Seventh Schedule — Article 246 of the Constitution — states can always challenge central laws by filing an original suit against the Union of India in terms of Article 131 of the Indian Constitution that reads as follows:

“Original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, the Supreme Court shall, to the exclusion of any other court, have original jurisdiction in any dispute

(a) between the Government of India and one or more States; or (b) between the Government of India and any State or States on one side and one or more other States on the other; or (c) between two or more States, if and in so far as the dispute involves any question (whether of law or fact) on which the existence or extent of a legal right depends: Provided that the said jurisdiction shall not extend to a dispute arising out of any treaty, agreement, covenant, engagements, and or other similar instrument...”