MOOT COURT

MOOT COURT EXERCISE AND INTERNSHIP

[Tutorial: 4]

INDIVIDUAL SUBMISSION

{ISSUE NO. 6} WHETHER THE PARLIAMENT’S OVERLOOKING OF THE

RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE VARADARAJAN COMMISSION RENDER THE FARM LAWS
VIOLATIVE OF THE CONSTITUTION?

BY:

I.V.Srikrishna

PRN: 16010323226

Team Code:D-6

DIVISION: D, CLASS: BB.A. LL.B., SEMESTER: Xth

In

March, 2021

Under the guidance of

Dr. Pankaj Umbarkar

Symbiosis Law School, Hyderabad

 STATEMENT OF FACTS

PARTIES TO THE CASE

1. Kisaan Mukti Morcha & Others, is the Petitioner in the present case. The union is
formed by Kisaan Mukti Morcha, a collective of several farming communities to raise
voice against the Farm laws and Kisan Sangharsh Sangh, an ally of the opposition
party, the Indistan Fundamentalist Party.
2. Republic of Indistan, is the Respondent in the present case. Current Union
Government formed by Indistan Liberal Front, a political party chaired by Prime
Minister, Dr. Ravindra which came to power in the 2019 Lok Sabha elections with
overwhelming majority, known to have floated several revolutionary reforms for the
labours, minorities, poor, and revered immensely in the art, literature and scientist
fraternity.
LAW AND COUNTRY
3. The PIL has been filed before the Federal Court of Indistan whose laws are pari
materia to the laws of India and is scheduled for the admissibility of the petition for
the restoration of Fundamental Rights.

CAUSE OF ACTION
4. In 2019, the outbreak of Covid-19 affected the lives of people across the globe
including the industries, offices, educational institutes etc., in Indistan.
5. In June, 2020 the Government has proposed three Ordinances which were later passed
by the Parliament through Voice Vote and which are mainly said as Agricultural
Reforms. These three Acts are as follows:
a) The Farmers' Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) Act,
2020.
b) Farmers (Empowerment and Protection) Agreement on Price Assurance and
Farm Services Act, 2020.
c) Essential Commodities (Amendment) Act, 2020.
6. The enactment of these laws led to mass protests across the nation.
 ACTION TAKEN BY PARTIES
7. Kisaan Mukti Morcha & Others: The Petitioners filed a petition calling for nullifying
the laws, and enacting laws consistent with the interests of the farmers.
8. The Union Government i.e. the Republic of Indistan argued that the PIL lacks merits
and warrants an immediate dismissal of the petition.
9. Kisaan Mukti Morcha & Others have filed the PIL under Article 32 of the
Constitution of Indistan.

STATEMENT OF ISSUE

ISSUE VI

WHETHER THE PARLIAMENT’S OVERLOOKING OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE

VARADARAJAN COMMISSION RENDER THE FARM LAWS VIOLATIVE OF THE

CONSTITUTION?

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

VI. WHETHER THE PARLIAMENT’S OVERLOOKING OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS

OF THE VARADARAJAN COMMISSION RENDER THE FARM LAWS VIOLATIVE OF THE

CONSTITUTION?

The Counsel for the Respondent humbly submits that the action of overlooking the
recommendations of the Varadarajan Commission do not render the farm laws violative of
the Constitution.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
I. Whether the Parliament’s overlooking of the recommendations of the
Vardarajan Commission render the Farm Laws Violative of the Constitution?
It is Humbly Submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the Parliament has accepted the major
recommendations of the commission that is “One Nation One Market” and has not
overlooked all the recommendations of the National Commission on farmers. National
Commission on farmers was constituted in 2004 and had submitted five reports between
December 2004 and October 2006 that included the recommendations to reduce the problems
of the farmers and structure a framework for better agriculture system had also discussed
numerous issues including land reforms, food security, and prevention of farmer’s suicide.

The Varadarajan Commission which was aimed at creating a better framework for the
farmers recommended that farmers should be distributed ceiling-surplus and mentioned that
the enforcement of MSP in the entire country has a significant role to play and ensures the
interest of crops, regions and people that might get affected in the process of globalization.
The recommendations of Commission focused on the MSP being more than 50% than the
weighted average cost of production1.

Further, it has been pleaded before the Hon’ble Court that the parliament has not violated
Article 14, Article 15 and Article 212 that talks about right to liberty. The Farm Laws gives
the freedom to the farmers to choose at the same time it creates several trading opportunities
outside the APMC market that is going to help them to get better piece following the
competition with the help of “The Farming Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and
Facilitation) Act, 20203”4.

The Farmers (Empowerment and Protection) Agreement on Price Assurance and Farm
Services Act, 20205 puts a frame work for contract farming that allows the farmers to discuss
prior to the sale of the produce and the last bill that is “The Essential Commodities
(Amendment) Act, 2020, allows the regulation of certain food items in case of extraordinary
situations.
It is also humbly submitted to the Hon’ble Court that all the key points mentioned in the
above three laws is completely based on the report submitted by the “Swaminathan
Committee” which recommends for the establishment of ‘One Nation-One Market”6.

Further, the Counsel humbly submits to the Hon’ble Court that the centre has the right to
reject the Commission’s recommendations on the genuine grounds. The centre can push back

1 PRS Legislative Research, Report Summary “Swaminathan Committee on Farmers, Oct, 2006
2 Article 14, 15 & 21, Constitution of India
3 “The Farmer’s Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) Act, 2020”, Act No. 21 of 2020
4 Shri Narendra Singh Tomar, Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, dated 17/09/2020 by PIB Delhi,
5 “The Farmers (Empowerment and Protection) Agreement on Price Assurance and Farm Services Act, 2020”,
(Act 20 of 2020)
6 Shri Narendra Singh Tomar, Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, dated 17/09/2020 by PIB Delhi,
the Commission’s recommendations if the centre feels and have the evidence of not
following the recommendations, the recommendations being unreasonable.7
Also in the case of “Kalpana Mehta vs. Union of India 8”, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has said
that “A Parliamentary Standing Committee Report has persuasive value while resolving an
ambiguity in wording of a statutory provision.”
It has been also seen in the case of S.R. Bommai vs. Union of India 9 it has been noted that
“Some of the recommendations of Sarkaria Commission have been adopted such as Governor
to be from outside State” but the supreme court has not raised any question on
implementation of the complete commission report and through which it can be taken out that
it is not required by the any government to adopt all the recommendations of the commission.

It is also humbly submitted to the Hon’ble Court that according to the passage of legislative
proposals in Parliament any committee set up either by the government or through an act of
the judicial proceeding, the report of such committee shall only have persuasive value and
either can be rejected at any point of time or some of its recommendations can be imbibed
while framing laws.10
The major recommendations were accepted by the centre which benefited the public at large.
The few recommendations of the Varadarajan Commission that the centre did not accept was
not violative of the the Indian Constitution as the centre hold the right to ask the commission
to reconsider the recommendations or choose not to implement the same.
If the reports mention that parliament has overlooked the recommendations, it is not
violative of the Indian Constitution because the provision doesn’t make it mandatory for the
law makers to adhere to all the recommendations that are issued by the Varadarajan
Commission.

7 R.S. Nayak v/s A.R. Antulay, (1984) 2 SCC 183

8 Kalpana Mehta v/s Union of India, (2018) 7 SCC 1
9 S.R. Bommai vs. Union of India, AIR (1994) SC 1918
10 Sanat Kanwar, “The Importance of Parliamentary Committees”, The PRS Blog, dated 19th Sep, 2019,
 PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Wherefore in the light of the facts stated, issues raised, authorities cited and arguments
advanced, it is most humbly prayed before this Honourable Court that it may be pleased to:

VI. Render the Farm Laws as constitutional as the recommendations given by

Varadarajan Commission were duly followed.

AND/OR

Pass any other order that it deems fit in the interest of Justice, Equity and Good
Conscience.

And for this, the Respondent as in duty bound, shall humbly pray.

COUNSELS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT