PolicyComparison of the 2020 central farm laws with the amendments proposed by statesPrachi Kaur,Suyash Tiwari- December 7, 2020A few weeks ago, in response to the initial protests by farmers against the new central farm laws, three state assemblies – Chhattisgarh, Punjab, and Rajasthan – passed Bills to address farmers’ concerns.  While these Bills await the respective Governors’ assent, protests against the central farm laws have gained momentum.  In this blog, we discuss the key amendments proposed by these states in response to the central farm laws.What are the central farm laws and what do they seek to do?In September 2020, Parliament enacted three laws: (i) theFarmers’ Produce Trade and Commerce(Promotion and Facilitation) Act, 2020, (ii) theFarmers (Empowerment and Protection) Agreementon Price Assurance and Farm Services Act, 2020, and (iii) theEssential Commodities(Amendment) Act, 2020.  The laws collectively seek to: (i) facilitate barrier-free trade of farmers’ produce outside the markets notified under the various state Agriculture Produce Marketing Committee (APMC) laws, (ii) define a framework for contract farming, and (iii) regulate the supply of certain food items, including cereals, pulses, potatoes, and onions, only under extraordinary circumstances such as war, famine, and extraordinary price rise.How do the central farm laws change the agricultural regulatory framework?Agricultural marketing in most states is regulated by the Agricultural Produce Marketing Committees (APMCs), set up under the state APMC Act.  The central farm laws seek to facilitate multiple channels of marketing outside the existing APMC markets.  Many of these existing markets face issues such as limited number of buyers restricting the entry of new players and undue deductions in the form of commission charges and market fees.  The central laws introduced a liberalised agricultural marketing system with the aim of increasing the availability of buyers for farmers’ produce.  More buyers would lead to competition in the agriculture market resulting in better prices for farmers.Why have states proposed amendments to the central farm laws?The central farm laws allow anyone with a PAN card to buy farmers’ produce in the ‘trade area’ outside the markets notified or run by the APMCs.  Buyers do not need to get a license from the state government or APMC, or pay any tax to them for such purchase in the ‘trade area’.  These changes in regulations raised concerns regarding the kind of protections available to farmers in the ‘trade area’ outside APMC markets, particularly in terms of the price discovery and payment.  To address such concerns, the states of Chhattisgarh, Punjab, and Rajasthan, in varying forms, proposed amendments to the existing agricultural marketing laws.ThePunjabandRajasthanassemblies passed Bills to amend the central Acts, in their application to these states.  The Chhattisgarh Assemblypassed a Billto amend its APMC Act in response to the central Acts.  These state Bills aim to prevent exploitation of farmers and ensure an optimum guarantee of fair market price for the agriculture produce.  Among other things, these state Bills enable state governments to levy market fee outside the physical premises of the state APMC markets, mandate MSP for certain types of agricultural trade, and enable state governments to regulate the production, supply, and distribution of essential commodities and impose stock limits under extraordinary circumstances.ChhattisgarhTheFarmers’ Produce Trade and Commerce(Promotion and Facilitation) Act, 2020 allows anyone with a PAN card to buy farmers’ produce in the trade area outside the markets notified or run by the APMCs.  Buyers do not need to get a license from the state government or APMC, or pay any tax to them for such purchase in the trade area.  The Chhattisgarh Assemblypassed a Bill to amend its APMC Actto allow the state government to notify structures outside APMC markets, such as godowns, cold storages, and e-trading platforms, as deemed markets.  This implies that such deemed markets will be under the jurisdiction of the APMCs as per the central Act.  Thus, APMCs in Chhattisgarh can levy market fee on sale of farmers’ produce in such deemed markets (outside the APMC markets) and require the buyer to have a license.Punjab and RajasthanThe Punjab and Rajasthan Bills empower the respective state governments to levy a market fee (on private traders, and electronic trading platforms) for trade outside the state APMC markets.  Further, they mandate that in certain cases, agricultural produce should not be sold or purchased at a price below the Minimum Support Price (MSP).  For instance, in Punjabsale and purchase of wheat and paddyshould not be below MSP.  The Bills also provide that they will override any other law currently in force.  Table 1 gives a comparison of the amendments proposed by states with the related provisions of the central farm laws.Table 1: Comparison of the central farm laws with amendments proposed by Punjab and RajasthanProvisionCentral lawsState amendmentsMarket feeThe central Actsprohibitthe state governments and APMCs from levying any market fee, cess, or any other charge on the trade of farmers’ produce outside the market yards notified or run by APMCs.The state Bills empower the state government to levy a fee (on private traders and electronic trading platforms) for trade outside the markets established or notified under the respective state APMC Acts.  Such fees collected will be utilised for the welfare of small and marginal farmers in case ofPunjab, and for running of the APMCs and welfare of farmers in case ofRajasthan.Minimum Support Price (MSP) -fixed by the central government, based on the recommendations of the Commission for Agricultural Costs and PricesThe central Acts do not provide for the MSP.  They do provide for acontractual agreementfor buyers and farmers to enter into prior to the production or rearing of any farm produce.  This agreement must specify a minimum guaranteed price that the buyer will pay to the farmer for the sale.ThePunjabBill provides that sale or purchase of wheat or paddy in state should be at prices equal to or above the MSP.TheRajasthanBill provides that the pre-determined prices for all crop under farming agreements should be at prices equal to or above the MSP.Penalties for compeling farmers to sell below MSPNot prescribed.InPunjab, if any buyer compels a farmer to sell wheat or paddy at a price below MSP, he will be penalised with an imprisonment term of at least three years and a fine.InRajsthan, if a buyer compels a farmer to enter into a farming agreement below MSP, it will attract imprisonment between three and seven years, or a fine up to five lakh rupees, or both.Delivery under farming agreementsThecentral Acts providethat the delivery of the produce can be: (i) taken by buyers at farm gate within the agreed time, or (ii) made by the farmer, in which case the buyer will be responsible for preparations for timely acceptance of the delivery. The buyer may inspect the quality of the produce as defined in the agreement.InRajasthan, if a buyer refuses to accept agricultural produce or take delivery of goods within a week from date of intimation by the farmer, he will attract imprisonment between three and seven years, or a fine of up to five lakh rupees, or both.Regulation of essential commoditiesTheEssential Commodities Act, 1955empowers the central government to regulate the production, supply, distribution, storage, and trade of essential commodities, such as medicines, fertilisers, and foodstuff.  TheEssential Commodities (Amendment) Act, 2020empowers the central government to regulate the supply of certain food items, including cereals, pulses, potato, and onions, only under extraordinary circumstances such as war, famine, extraordinary price rise, and natural calamity of grave nature.ThestateBillsprovide that the respective state government will also have the powers to: (i) regulate the production, supply, and distribution of essential commodities, and (ii) impose stock limits under extraordinary circumstances.  Such circumstances may include: (i) famine, (ii) price rise, (iii) natural calamity, or (iv) any other situation.Imposition of stock limitTheFarmers (Empowerment and Protection) Agreementon Price Assurance and Farm Services Act, 2020 provides that any stock limit will not apply to the farming produce sold under a farming agreement.TheRajasthan Billamending the central Act empowers the state government to impose stock limits, under certain conditions, on any farm produce sold under a farming agreement.  These conditions are: (i) if there is a shortage of such farm produce in the state, or (ii) if there is a 25% increase in prices of such produce beyond the maximum price which was prevailing in the market (within two years before passing of such an order by the state government).Dispute Resolution Mechanism for FarmersThecentral Actsprovide that at first, all disputes must be referred to a Conciliation Board for resolution.  If the dispute remains unresolved by the Board after 30 days, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM) may be approached for resolution.Further, parties can appeal to an Appellate Authority (presided by collector or additional collector) against decisions of the SDM.  Both SDM and Appellate Authority will be required to dispose a dispute within 30 days from the receipt of application.Instead of the dispute resolution mechanism specified under the central Acts, theRajasthan Billprovides that disputes will be resolved by APMCs, as per the provisions of the state APMC Act.Power of civil courtsThecentral Actsprohibit civil courts from adjudicating over disputes under the Acts.ThePunjabBill allows farmers to approach civil courts or avail other remedies under existing laws, in addition to those available under the central Acts.TheRajasthanBill provides that the jurisdiction of civil courts over disputes will be as per the state APMC Act and rules under it.  Currently, the state APMC Act prohibits civil courts from adjudicating over disputes related to trade allowance and contract farming agreements under the Act.Special provisions-TheBillsprovidethat the state APMC Act will continue to apply in the respective states, as they did prior to enactment of the central Acts (i.e. June 4, 2020).  Further, all notices issued by the central government or any authority under the central Acts will be suspended.  No punitive action will be taken for any violation of the provisions of the central Acts.Note: A market committee provides facilities for and regulates the marketing of agricultural produce in a designated market area.Have the state amendments come into force?The amendments proposed by states aim to address the concerns of farmers, but to a varying extent.  The Bills have not come into force yet as they await the Governors’ assent.   In addition, the Punjab and Rajasthan Bills also need the assent of the President, as they are inconsistent with the central Acts and seek to amend them.  Meanwhile, amidst the ongoing protests, many farmers’ organisations are in talks with the central government to seek redressal of their grievances and appropriate changes in the central farm laws.  It remains to be seen to what extent will such changes address the concerns of farmers.A version of this article first appeared on Firstpost on December 5, 2020.ParliamentFirst no-confidence motion of the 17th Lok Sabha discussed todayNiranjana Menon- August 8, 2023Discussion on the first no-confidence motion of the 17thLok Sabha began today.  No-confidence motions and confidence motions are trust votes, used to test or demonstrate the support of Lok Sabha for the government in power.  Article 75(3) of the Constitution states that the government is collectively responsible to Lok Sabha.  This means that the government must always enjoy the support of a majority of the members of Lok Sabha.  Trust votes are used to examine this support.  The government resigns if a majority of members support a no-confidence motion, or reject a confidence motion.So far, 28 no-confidence motions (including the one being discussed today) and 11 confidence motions have beendiscussed.  Over the years, the number of such motions has reduced.  The mid-1960s and mid-1970s saw more no-confidence motions, whereas the 1990s saw more confidence motions.Figure1: Trust votes in ParliamentNote: *Term shorter than 5 years; **6-year term.Source: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.The no-confidence motion being discussed today wasmovedon July 26, 2023.  A motion of no-confidence is moved with the support of at least 50 members.   The Speaker has the discretion to allot time for discussion of the motion.  TheRules of Procedurestate that the motion must be discussed within 10 days of being introduced.  This year, the no-confidence motion wasdiscussed13 calendar days after introduction.  Since the introduction of the no-confidence motion on July 26, 12 Bills have been introduced and 18 Bills have been passed by Lok Sabha.  In the past, on four occasions, the discussion on no-confidence motions began seven days after their introduction.  On these occasions, Bills and other important issues were debated before the discussion on the no-confidence motion began.Figure2: Members rise in support of the motion of no-confidence in Lok SabhaSource: Sansad TV, Lok Sabha, July 26, 2023; PRS.Figure3: Number of days from introduction to discussion on no-confidence motionsNote: Number of days implies calendar days.Source: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.On average, no-confidence motions (excluding the one being discussed today) have been discussed for 13 hours over three days.  Discussions have lasted longer than 20 hours on four instances, most recently in 2003.  Today’s no-confidence motion was allotted 12 hours discussion time by theBusiness Advisory Committee.Following the discussion, the motion is put to vote.  26 out of 27 no-confidence motions (excluding the one being discussed today) have been voted upon and rejected.  This means that no government has ever had to resign following a vote of no-confidence.   On one occasion, in 1979, the discussion on a no-confidence motion against the Morarji Desai government remained inconclusive.  He resigned before the motion was put to vote.  50% of all no-confidence motions (14 out of 28) were discussed between 1965 and 1975.  Of these, 12 were against governments headed by Indira Gandhi.Figure4: Duration of discussion on no-confidence motionsNote: This graph excludes the no confidence motion moved on July 26, 2023.Source: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.In comparison, confidence motions have a more varied history.  The first motion, brought in 1979 to demonstrate confidence in Charan Singh’s government, was not discussed at all.  The Prime Minister resigned before the discussion could take place.  Since then, 11 confidence motions have been discussed in Lok Sabha, with nine occurring in the 1990s.  During this period, several coalition governments were formed, and Prime Ministers sought to prove their majority throughconfidence motions.   These motions have been discussed, on average, for 12 hours over two days.Figure5: Duration of discussion of confidence motionsSource: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.Of the 11 confidence motions discussed in Lok Sabha, seven were accepted.  On three instances, governments had to resign as they could not prove that they had the support of the majority.  On one instance in 1996, the motion was not put to vote.  Following an eleven-hour discussion on this confidence motion, Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee announced his intention to resign on the floor of the House.  He resigned 16 days into his term.Vajpayee became Prime Minister again in 1999, and faced another confidence motion.   This time, it was put to vote.   The motion was defeated by a margin of one vote.  This has been the closest result on a trust vote in the history of Lok Sabha.  The next closest result was when a motion of no-confidence against P V Narasimha Rao’s government was defeated by 14 votes in 1993.  In most cases, results have been in favour of the government by a large margin.«12345678910»
PolicyComparison of the 2020 central farm laws with the amendments proposed by statesPrachi Kaur,Suyash Tiwari- December 7, 2020