Chhattisgarh HC issues notice in plea challenging constitutionality of Farmer’s Produce Trade and Commerce Ordinance, 2020

The Chhattisgarh High Court has issued notice in a plea challenging the constitutional validity of the recently promulgated Farmer’s Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) Ordinance, 2020..The Ordinance has been challenged on the grounds that it “fails the test of constitutionality and is in violation of Article 246, 23 and 14 of the Constitution.”.Notice has been issued by a Division Bench of Chief Justice PR Ramachandra Menon and Justice Parth Prateem Sahu..The petition by the Chhattisgarh Kisan Congress (the farmer's wing of Indian National Congress in Chhattisgarh) filed through Advocate Aman Saxena challenges the vires of the Ordinance on the contention that the “pith and substance of the impugned ordinance is regulating intrastate agriculture and hence it is repugnant to the State Act.".The Ordinance under challenge was promulgated by the President of India under Article 123 of the Constitution. It seeks to supplant the State Agricultural Produce Market Committee (APMC) Acts of all states, and particularly the Chhattisgarh Krishi Upaj Mandi Adhiniyam, 1972 and its by-laws..The petitioners have contended that agriculture is a subject under Entry 14 of List II of the Constitution, over which states have the exclusive power to make laws on, by virtue of Article 246(3)..Agriculture being a State subject under the Constitution, any Central legislation seeking to remove barriers to trade and creating a unified national market for farm produce has the capacity to start a fresh debate on federalism.The plea goes on to state,."(The) Union of India lacks legislative power to bring such enactment and in the garb of reforms, has pushed forth an ill-thought-out piece of legislation through the President, wrought with presumptive follies, without any discussion in the parliament."Plea filed in Chhattisgarh High Court.The Kisan Congress has further averred that the Ordinance is violative of the right against exploitation enshrined in the Constitution under Article 23 for not just its failure to protect the poor, unorganized, marginal and small farmers, but also for abrogating the already existing substantive protections under the state Act..The Ordinance is primarily being seen as an attempt to dismantle the monopoly of the APMC mandis in wholesale trading of farming commodities, particularly in opposition-ruled states..The APMC mandis, where farmers bring their produce to sell through licensed commission agents, accordingly operate under the jurisdiction of state governments. These regulated market yards (about 2,500 of them across the country in almost every taluka/tehsil) have been established under APMC laws enacted by individual states..The plea states that the Ordinance also fails the settled classification test under Article 14 due to a “broad-based classification and equating hapless farmers indulging in agriculture with other forms of voluntary trading activity.” It is averred,.“It fails to create an intelligible differentia and exposes the vulnerable in need of protection to the free market forces and likely exploitation by the farm traders.”.After the Ordinance replaces the state Act, it would expose the farmers to multiple avenues for exploitation, states the plea..The Ordinance would allow traders to conduct trade outside by bypassing the competitive process and, thereby, dominate marginal and small farmers with limited produce and low bargaining power, the plea further claims..The petition further states that the Ordinance provides for no overarching body to protect farmers from unscrupulous traders and that “due to the above stringent mechanism, there is almost negligible default on part of the traders”.