In a recent development, the Supreme Court, in the case of Agnostos Theos vs Union of India and Anr., has stirred attention by issuing a notice on a Public Interest Litigation (PIL). This PIL advocates for several crucial directions for the Union, with a focus on implementing farmer-centric measures.
These include the enforcement of the National Policy for Farmers (2007), the adoption of recommendations from the National Commission of Farmers (2004), the creation of a price stabilization fund, and the imposition of agricultural cess to support impoverished farmers, among other significant proposals.
Here is all you need to know:
- Agnostos Theos, Managing Director of The Sikh Chamber of Commerce (TSCC), lodged a petition against the Union and the Ministry of Commerce.
- During the hearing, a bench led by Justice Kant and KV Viswanathan expressed dissatisfaction with the petitioner’s lack of preparation. They stressed the need for concrete research, facts, figures, and data.
- Justice Viswanathan raised queries regarding the Stabilisation fund, questioning its necessity if farmers are already receiving minimum support prices (MSP). He inquired about the fund’s workings, contributors, and referenced reports.
- Justice Kant suggested that the petitioner appeared to advocate for sugar factories rather than farmers. Despite this, the bench issued notice, cautioning against vague requests and urging the counsel to provide supporting materials.
- The petition calls for a Stabilisation fund to aid farmers during price fluctuations in agricultural commodities. It alleges that the Union’s inaction has led to agrarian distress, prompting the need for a new green revolution.
- The petition highlights the stagnation of employment generation in agriculture and urges action based on the National Policy for Farmers (2007) and National Commission of Farmers reports.
- It advocates for loan waivers on par with corporate entities to alleviate farmers’ debt and poverty, citing monsoon and market uncertainties.
- The petition criticizes the Indian Government’s WTO negotiations, claiming they neglected Indian farmers’ interests and led to the absence of a Price Stabilization Fund.
- Additionally, it alleges that inadequate subsidies and the allowance of cheap agricultural imports threaten farmers’ livelihoods.
- Previously, the petitioner sought directions for protesting farmers and withdrew the petition following reservations expressed by the bench.
Read More: Supreme Court, Delhi High Court, States High Court, Other Courts, International