
If true, these "farmers" are really seasoned players
ball is now firmly in the court's court

I guess the 'farmer brokers' also knew that the SC role in their case is minimal. They jolly well know that the laws cannot be annulled as it may pass all constituitional checks. Next SC can bring in a stay, but that is never permenant. The 'farmer broker' gang wants 100% continuance of their old "dalaali" way of life and make an easy living.chetak wrote:ball is now firmly in the court's court
Amber wrote:Serves "merlords" right. But knowing how the esteemed bench is they'll still side with those gheraoing Delhi and put a stay order on the new laws.
Even for putting a stay on any Act (or sections of an Act) there has to be a sound legal & logical reasoning which is also is based on the written constitution of the country. It cannot be on the whims and fancies of the judge, or using a popular demand (?) or chances of rioting as an excuse. Even in the case of Sabari Mala the protests was NOT the legally written down reason for making course corrections. The court found legal merit in the PILs etc filed and found discrepancy in their own earlier judgements. That was used as a reason to refer the case to a larger bench, and put the earlier order in abeyance. Since the act of women (of the banned age) entering the shrine would make the whole case infructuous (i.e meaningless), the commie government now cannot try any of their shenanigans.Dileep wrote:Can't we file a massive bunch of petitions supporting the bills, now that the Hon Court said there is none?
Beg to disagree, sir. NaMo is showing himself to be incapable of standing up to the judiciary. Firstly, by repeatedly telling farmers: "let the SC decide". What is there for the SC to decide? Our milords don't need an invitation for over-reach and he just handed them one.ramana wrote: NaMo is taking a lot of poison for India.
I think the Mullah-marxists-missionary cabal wants a narrative of blood thirsty govt. They want violence/riots on the streets and then columns in white man's newspaper on sob stories of the high handedness of the hindootva gobmint killing poor muzzies/dalits on the streets.Prem Kumar wrote:Beg to disagree, sir. NaMo is showing himself to be incapable of standing up to the judiciary. Firstly, by repeatedly telling farmers: "let the SC decide". What is there for the SC to decide? Our milords don't need an invitation for over-reach and he just handed them one.ramana wrote: NaMo is taking a lot of poison for India.
Just like with CAA, this Govt doesn't know how to exercise their constitutionally guaranteed authority. They are too afraid of judiciary & media. Plus, they're trying to please everyone. Both are recipes for failure.
Pathetic to see a Govt that was elected with an unprecedented majority to behave in this craven manner.
People won't respect a Govt that cannot display Kshatriyata. No one follows a "beta male"
Couple of things, SC should not have entertained the PIL. Since it did, it now has to keep its acerbic statements under check.Prem Kumar wrote: Beg to disagree, sir. NaMo is showing himself to be incapable of standing up to the judiciary. Firstly, by repeatedly telling farmers: "let the SC decide". What is there for the SC to decide? Our milords don't need an invitation for over-reach and he just handed them one.
The court also said that they were not aware of the consultations, if any, that were undertaken prior to the passage of the bill clearly implying that no consultations were doneDileep wrote:Can't we file a massive bunch of petitions supporting the bills, now that the Hon Court said there is none?
sirji,Philip wrote:If the SC wants to intervene,let it do so.The heat will be off the GOI! But there has to be give and take on both sides. Farmers cannot boycott SC conducted talks. The GOI should allow a time-bound stay of the laws during which time negotiations must be concluded. That is the tough job the SC will have to accomplish
Indeed !chetak wrote:frame and keep in a prominent place of honor
I tend to disagree. Yes, I too had certain hopes on the BJP governments and they are diabolically slow (or useless) in some areas. But we must also think about the success stories they have. CAA; courts are no where in the picture. J&K Union Territory creation; courts again have been side lined. And in both cases many PILs were all filed. All entertained for a while and then quickly disposed away (with out media fan fare). So I don't think the BJP top brass are fools, their mastery in forming laws seems to be quite good. It is in Info & Broadcasting, Education kind of portfolios where BJP government's performance has been abysmal. And this will hit them when it comes to perception management.Prem Kumar wrote:As I have stated above, we expected the Modi-sarkar to be an alpha-dog. It turned out to be a whimpering mongrel.
nothing has happened yet.Prem Kumar wrote:If after this judicial intervention, someone says we have "pillars of democracy", "checks & balances" or "balance of power", its a joke.
As I have stated above, we expected the Modi-sarkar to be an alpha-dog. It turned out to be a whimpering mongrel.
Many will twist themselves to explain the uber-chankian'ness of it all
Bar & Bench@barandbench · Jan 11
Senior Adv PS Narasimha appears for Indian Kisan Union: large number of organizations believe that this law is beneficial for them. Before any interim order is granted, we need to be heard.
CJI: even if your argument is valid it does not help the solution to the problem
very well put ...chetak wrote:
nothing has happened yet.
the needless bluster is precisely because only one is a globally acknowledged alpha
people who impetuously jumped into the deep end have suddenly realized that running a govt is not easy.
an extremely powerful and assertive parliament on the one side and a ragtag bunch of "farmers" fronting for some greedy political families arrayed on the other.
If mishandled, it could well precipitate an ugly constitutional crisis with one party having the demonstrated numbers for impeachment, should it desire to go the distance
this is not the time for chest thumping, not with the hans backed into a corner and stuck at the Indian border waiting to lash out.
Not a legal expert. Personally I think policy matters should be the responsibility of the government and these types of judgments are regressive.Vidur wrote:Indeed !chetak wrote:frame and keep in a prominent place of honor
Are there any legal experts here ? I would be interested to know what the views are on
-Sovereignty of Parliament
-Limits of SC Powers and who has the final say
- Role of President
My questions are from a legal and constitutional structure POV not a tactical POV on current situation. This judgement has far reaching implications.
Re CAA, the rules have not been notified therefore the implementation is in abeyance in effect.Sachin wrote:Perhaps it would be better to start a fresh thread exclusively track the 'Farmer broker' drama. As there seems to be too many posts on this subject.
Members of SC panel on agri laws pro-govt, won't appear before it, say Farmer unions
The committee was formed by Hon. SC, and the 'farmer brokers' say that they are government stooges. So looks like Hon. SC also had an intention to bring the 'farmer brokers' to negotiation table, to a set of people who are not politicians and can explain the rationale behind the laws. The committee members are aware of agriculture situation and trends etc. And most likely 'farmer brokers' will not be able *logically* argue against the laws, so emotional dramas are all what they can do.
Understand that there are some more arguments in the Supreme Court today in which the AG had stated that terror outfits had infiltrated the protest. The AG is to file an additional affidavit and also place information from the Intelligence Bureau. My hope is that IB had lied low but gleaned enough information on the true agenda and the back stage players of this charade.
I tend to disagree. Yes, I too had certain hopes on the BJP governments and they are diabolically slow (or useless) in some areas. But we must also think about the success stories they have. CAA; courts are no where in the picture. J&K Union Territory creation; courts again have been side lined. And in both cases many PILs were all filed. All entertained for a while and then quickly disposed away (with out media fan fare). So I don't think the BJP top brass are fools, their mastery in forming laws seems to be quite good. It is in Info & Broadcasting, Education kind of portfolios where BJP government's performance has been abysmal. And this will hit them when it comes to perception management.Prem Kumar wrote:As I have stated above, we expected the Modi-sarkar to be an alpha-dog. It turned out to be a whimpering mongrel.
True but what you are saying is one statement that has been placed out of context.chetak wrote:@ManSingh ji
People go to court when unhappy... not when they are happy about something...
how can anyone in the judiciary make such a statement that there is not a single petition before us which says that farm laws are beneficial to the farmers
a constitutional court can only stay a law if it perceives any imperfection or deficiency in the said law. It cannot arbitrarily do so "to facilitate consultations".
can the right to free speech be stayed by anyone because some of some ongoing consultations
Agreed with that. Amit Shah's promise was to notify the rules after the COVID pandemic is under control. But let us wait & watchVidur wrote:Re CAA, the rules have not been notified therefore the implementation is in abeyance in effect.
In the affidavit filed by GoI it has been clearly said that there are farmer groups who are in favour of the laws. Their interests were any where represented by GoI and its advocates.ManSingh wrote:The supreme court asked for proof saying that not a single party/lawyer has petitioned before it in favour of the laws.
But that may not work out always and every time. Supreme Court also has some mandates on what kind of legal scrutiny they can do. They cannot stay/annul laws passed by the elected representatives by using L&O issues etc. as an excuse. Hon. SC has now lost of a bit of its sheen, when the protestors have said they will not bother to work with this committee. So much for their respect for judiciary. GoI will now for sure file appeals and further affidavits stating that this earlier plans of committee etc. is useless and GoI should be allowed to go on with its business (of law making). Now IB would certainly be providing details on Khalistani & 'tukde tukde' gang involvement. This will once again reveal the true colours of the protesting brokers. And there is now also some confusion among the various protesting gangs on how to continue the protest. One group talks about a tractor rally, where as some others says they will protest in more peaceful manners. Rest assured more fissures will now start appearing within their ranks.Yes, a court should be only involved on the constitutional validity of a law. But this has not been standard practice for years and they have been involved in policy matters mainly to keep governments in check.
until one day, someone stares right back at the court and decides to take them downManSingh wrote: Yes, a court should be only involved on the constitutional validity of a law. But this has not been standard practice for years and they have been involved in policy matters mainly to keep governments in check. Frankly speaking sometimes it has been good that they have been involved.
As per the existing Farm laws, the dispute resolution mechanism was primarily through the executive magistrate (SDM) route. In fact this would have been more easier as the SDM/RDO courts are more easily approachable. The judicial route as we all know is much more time taking. For some strange reason the 'farmer brokers' were against it. The central government in pricipal had agreed to change this so that judicial courts would be dealing with violations of provisions in the act. Explained: In farm laws, the dispute settlement provision Govt has offered to roll back.dsreedhar wrote:Somewhere i saw there was a request to allow court option for dispute resolution. The farm bills have 3 level channel. Did the govt agree to the court option? Provide any reference link available.
via@Priya_PRSIn Janpath traffic light, comes a transgender asking 4 alms. I tell her I got only cards, no money. She winks at me, smiles & asks to Paytm/PhonePe with a "digital bano didi, Modi ko nahi suna" I couldn't but smile ear 2 ear.
PM Modi's #DigitalIndia is really transformative.
10:37 PM · Jan 11, 2021·
Indeed.Ambar wrote:It is not the supreme court's business to keep a democratically elected government "in check", their responsibility begins and ends in ensuring the acts of parliament and promogulated laws are within the confines of the constitution and that the laws don't do anything to abridge the fundamental rights of the citizens. By unilaterally deciding to put a stay order on laws passed by the parliament and setting up its own committee of "experts", the judiciary is indicating they can and will arbitrarily take over the function of legislative and executive. By setting such a precedence, the court has only confirmed the long held suspicion that they harbor a deep desire to replicate Iftikhar Chowdary's activist supreme court in the banana republic of Pakistan.
Names of Committee members mentioned by the CJI-led bench :
1. Bhupinder Singh Mann.
2. Ashok Gulati
3. Anil Ghanwant
4. Pramod K Joshi.
All 4 have publicly supported the #FarmLaws
This is a good thing. Non-farm leaders must be given the boot.Sachin wrote:
This will once again reveal the true colours of the protesting brokers. And there is now also some confusion among the various protesting gangs on how to continue the protest. One group talks about a tractor rally, where as some others says they will protest in more peaceful manners. Rest assured more fissures will now start appearing within their ranks.