MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER CODE- IMCC_042

BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF VIJAYANAGARA

EXTRAORDINARY ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

(Under Article 131 of the Constitution of Vijayanagara)

Petition No. ____/2021

IN THE MATTER OF

State Governments………..…………………………………………...…………..Petitioners

Versus

Union of Vijayanagara and Ors. ………………………………………………Respondents

-AND-

ORIGINAL JURSIDICTION

(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of Vijayanagara)

(Public Interest Litigation)

IN THE MATTER OF

Kisan Sankadan and Ors. ………………………………………………………..Petitioners

Versus

Union of Vijayanagara and Ors. ………………………………………...…….Respondents

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS

1
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER CODE- IMCC_042

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TOPIC PAGE NO.

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 4
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 5-6
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION 7
STATEMENT OF FACTS 8-9
STATEMENT OF ISSUES 10
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS 11
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED:-
I.THAT THE PRESENT CASE IS MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THE
SUPREME COURT:-

1.1 That the petitions filed by the State Governments under Article 131
are maintainable in law. 12-13

1.2. That the petitions filed by the farmers’ unions are maintainable
under Article 32. 13

1.3. The clubbing of petitions by this hon’ble court is maintainable in

law. 13-14

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED:-
II.THAT THE UNION OF VIJAYANAGARA IS NOT
COMPETENT TO ENACT THE IMPUGNED LEGISLATIONS:-

2.1. Article 246 & Agriculture falling exclusively under the state list 15

2.2. Constitutional Setup (Entry 14 of the state list and Entry 33 of the
concurrent list) 15-16

2
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER CODE- IMCC_042

2.3. The acts are subject to Doctrine of Colourable Legislation. 16-17

2.4. The acts questions the federal structure of the nation. 17

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED:-
III. That the impugned legislations violate the fundamental rights of
the farmers:-

3.1. The first two impugned legislations are in violation of Article 14 of

the constitution. 18-20

3.2. Essential Commodities (Amendment) Act, 2020 in violation of

article 14 and 21 of the constitution. 20-21

3.3. The first two impugned legislation are in violation of article 21 of

the constitution. 21

THE PRAYER 22

3
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER CODE- IMCC_042

LIST OFABBREVATIONS

ABBREVIATION EXPANDED FORM

AIR ALL INDIA REPORTER
APMC AGRICULTURE PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE
HON’BLE HONORABLE
MSP MINIMUM SUPOORT PRICE
NO NUMBER
ORS OTHERS
SC SUPREME COURT
SCC SUPREME COURT CASES
V VERSUS

4
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER CODE- IMCC_042

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

TABLE OF CASES

SERIAL CASE LAWS CITATION PAGE NO.

NO
1. Anita Khushwa v. Pushpa Sadan AIR 2016 SC 3056 21

2. Ashok Kumar v. Union of India AIR 1991 SC 1792. 17

3. Federation of Bar Association of Karnataka v. AIR 2000 SC 2544. 13

Union of India

4. Firm Seth Radha Kishan v. Municipal Committee AIR 1963 SC 1547. 19

Administrator, Ludhiana

5. ITC Limited v. Agriculture Produce Market AIR 2002 SC 852 17

Committee

6. KC Gajapati Narayan Deo v. State of Orissa AIR 1953 SC 375. 17

7. Mithu v. State of Punjab AIR 1983 SC 473. 21

8. Mohd. Arif v. Supreme Court of India (2014) 9 SCC 737. 21

9. Naraindas v. State of Madya Pradesh AIR 1974 SC 1232. 18

10. Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras AIR1950 SC 124. 13

11. Sheo Nandan Paswan v. State of Bihar AIR 1987 SC 877. 18

12. State of Karnataka v. Union of India AIR 1978 SC 68 12

5
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER CODE- IMCC_042

13. Sudhir Chandra v. Tata Iron and Steel Corporation AIR 1984 SC 1064. 19
Ltd.

14. Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India AIR 1998 SC 1895. 14

STATUTES
1. Constitution of India, 1949;
2. The Farmers’ Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) Act, 2020;
3. The Farmers (Empowerment and Protection) Agreement on Price Assurance and Farm
Services Act, 2020;
4. The Essential Commodities (Amendment) Act, 2020; and
5. Essential Commodities Act, 1955.

BOOKS AND REFERENCES

1. Jain M.P., Indian Constitutional Law, 8th Edition 2019 (Reprint), edited by Justice Jasti
Chelameshwar and another, Lexis Nexis;
2. Basu, D.D, Commentary on the Constitution of India, 8th Edition 2007, edited by
Justice Y.V.Chandrachud and others, Wadhwa Nagpur;
3. Datar, P. Aravind, Commentary on the Constitution of India, 2ndedition, reprint 2010,
Volume –I (Articles 1-151), Lexis Nexis, Butterworths Wadhwa;

WEBSITE LINKS

1. www.indiankanoon.org
2. www.casemine.com
3. www.researchgate.com
4. www.cjp.org.in
5. www.latestlaws.com
6. www.barandbench.com
7. www.organiser.org

6
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER CODE- IMCC_042

STATEMENT OF JURSIDICTION

The state governments have approached this Hon’ble Court under Article 131 of the
Constitution of Vijayanagara.

The Kisan Sankadan and other farmers’ unions have approached this Hon’ble Court under
Article 32 of the Constitution of Vijayanagara.

Leave has been granted accordingly.

7
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER CODE- IMCC_042

STATEMENT OF FACTS

I
Vijayanagara is democratic nation situated in Asia, the state of Vijayanagara has been an
agrarian economy since the independence of the nation. Over the years many farmer’s unions
were formed for safeguarding the farmer community, ‘Kisan Sankadan’ is also one of the
farmer’s union since 2005. The farmers are content with the existing laws and have not
expressed any concerns regarding this. However, Vijayanagara has had a long-drawn history
of farmer suicides. Thousands of farmers have affirmed they are more or less in perpetual debt.
Vijayanagara has a zamindari system engrained in its history and the farmers eventually fell
prey to this system. It turned to a point where the government was completely convinced that
the lacuna is farm laws is the root cause for all the hardships which were faced by the farmers.

II
With the aim to help the farmers and end this system, the government of Vijayanagara
introduced APMC (Agriculture Produce Market Committee) Act. APMCs set up Mandis or
Markets across the country where farmer’s produce was sold. Now, the farmers sell their
produce to middlemen or Arhatiyas, the government provides license to these middlemen for
setting up shops, storage facility, etc. As per the existing system the vendor does not buy
directly from the farmers, the farmers first sell their produce to the licensed middlemen in the
APMC markets then the middlemen sell it to the retailer, vendor, big traders, etc. So,
middlemen was a link between the farmers and the vendors. APMCs are a self-thriving
ecosystem and employ a considerable number of people. APMC markets are regulated by state
governments and a tax is charged on each transaction.

The produce which is not bought by the middlemen in these markets is being bought by the
government at MSP (Minimum Support Price). MSP is constant throughout the country. MSP
also ensured that produce bought by the middlemen were not below a certain price. This system
served well in the initial phase but eventually the effectiveness of the system decreased and
problems started creeping in and middlemen started exploiting farmers by forming cartels and
buying the produce at only MSP and then selling it in high rates.

8
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER CODE- IMCC_042

III
The Central Government being aware of the hardships faced by the farmers enacted the
following laws :-

a. The Farmers’ Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) Act 2020

b. The Farmers (Empowerment and Protection) Agreement on Price Assurance and

Farm Services Act 2020

c. The Essential Commodities (Amendment) Act 2020

According to the Union Government These Acts are sought to bring much needed reforms in
the agricultural marketing system such as removing restrictions of private stock holding of
agricultural produce or creating trading areas free of middlemen and take the market to the
farmer.

The members of the opposition party opposed the acts and called it “anti-farm laws”. The laws
faced an unpleasant welcome at the hands of the farmers. There was nationwide agitation
especially from states around the capital territory, Kumta. Owing to this, the borders to Kumta
were shut down and protestors have stationed themselves outside the state border.

Taking these things into consideration, the central government took initiatives to resolve the
crisis by inviting the leaders of the protesting farmer groups for talks. Even after several rounds
of talks consensus could not be reached.

IV
The opposing States Governments filed a petition under Article 131 challenging the legislative
competence in enacting these laws as it violates the fabric of federalism which is the basic
structure of the Indian Constitution.

“Kisan Sankadan” and several other farmers unions have approached the Supreme Court under
Article 32 seeking relief against the laws which they claim to be unconstitutional as they are
violative of Fundamental Rights.

The Supreme Court has now fixed all the cases for hearing as to the correctness and propriety
of the issues and to determine the validity of these legislations.

9
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER CODE- IMCC_042

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

I
Whether the present case is maintainable before the Supreme Court?

II
Whether the Union of Vijayanagara is competent to enact the impugned legislations?

III
Whether the impugned legislation violate the fundamental rights of the farmers?

10
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER CODE- IMCC_042

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

I. THAT THE PRESENT CASE IS MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THE SUPREME

COURT OF VIJAYANAGARA

The counsel would like to humbly submit that the instant case is maintainable before
this Hon’ble Court. The petitions filed by the state governments under Article 131 and the
petitions filed by the farmer’s unions under Article 32 are maintainable and this Hon’ble Court
has the plenary power to club petitions in order to do complete justice under Article 142.

II. THAT THE UNION OF VIJAYANAGARA IS NOT COMPETENT TO ENACT THE

IMPUGNED LEGISLATIONS.

The counsel would like to humbly submit that the Union of Vijayanagara is not
competent to enact the impugned legislations. The union of Vijayanagara has enacted three
laws pertaining to agriculture, which falls under purview the State List and also the Union
Government is not competent to enact the impugned legislations under entry 33 of the
Concurrent List, as the scope of the three laws go beyond the ambit under entry 33. So, the
impugned legislations which must be struck down as they are unconstitutional.

III. THAT THE IMPUGNED LEGISLATIONS VIOLATE THE FUNDAMENTAL

RIGHTS OF FARMERS AS ENSHRINED UNDER PART III OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF VIJAYANAGARA.

The counsel would like to humbly submit that the three impugned legislations are in
violation of the fundamental rights enshrined under Part III of the Constitution. All the acts in
the instant matter violate Article 14 and Article 21 as unreasonable and arbitrary. Furthermore,
the Farmers (Empowerment and Protection) Agreement on Price Assurance and Farm Services
Act, 2020 and the Farmers’ Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) Act,
2020 are also in violation of the right to seek justice, which is an essential and integral part of
Articles 14 and 21.

11
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER CODE- IMCC_042

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

I. That the present case is maintainable before the Supreme Court.

1. The State Government have filed the petitions under article 131 of the constitution and the
farmer’s union have filed the petitions under article 32 of the constitution. The council
would like to humbly submit to the hon’ble court that the instant matter is maintainable
before the Supreme Court of Vijayanagara.
1.1) That the petitions filed by the State Governments under article 131
are maintainable

2. A bare text reading of the constitution shows that article 131 speaks about the original and
exclusive jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. It talks about the fact that the Supreme Court
shall have an exclusive jurisdiction in disputes which arise between the Union Government
and some of the states of the country, between the Union Government and one or more
states on one side and some other states on the other hand and between two states
themselves. These disputes can be taken up by the Supreme Court only when there is a
question on law or fact depending upon the extent of legal right involved.
3. In the case of State of Karnataka v. Union of India,1 the court laid emphasis on the point
that all the cases which are under Article 131 of the constitution should only be about legal
rights of either of the parties, any kind of non-legal aspect will not be entertained. Thus,
defining the scope of article 131 the hon’ble judge said “what has, Therefore to be seen in
order to determine the applicability of article 131 is whether there is any relational legal
matter involving a right, liberty, power or immunity qua the parties to the dispute. If there
is, the suit would be maintainable but not otherwise”.
4. Under Article 246(3),2 the State Legislature has exclusive power to enact legislation for
the matters mention in the state list (list II). The union government has power to make laws
under the union list and concurrent list, but cannot make laws for the matters that fall under
the state list because state has exclusive power for it, but in the instant matter the Union

1
AIR 1978 SC 68
2
Article 246(3) Subject to clauses (1) and (2), the Legislature of any State 1 *** has exclusive power to make
laws for such State or any part thereof with respect to any of the matters enumerated in List II in the Seventh
Schedule (in this Constitution referred to as the “State List”).

12
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER CODE- IMCC_042

Government has encroached the states territory to make laws, as the impugned legislation
fall under entry 143 of the state list .
5. The Union Government has enacted laws for the matter of agriculture, but since the matter
of agriculture exclusively falls under state list by the virtue of entry 14 and other entries
like 28, 30, 46, 47 and 48. So, on the afore mentioned grounds, the Union Government
have violated the constitutional right of the states.
6. In the instant matter the constitution right of the state under article 246(3) has been violated
by the Union Government, thus the legal right of the has established and therefore the
petitions filed under article 131 of the constitution are maintainable.
1.2) That the writ petitions filed by the farmer’s union are maintainable
7. The petitioners have approached this hon’ble court under article 324 of the constitution. In
Federation of Bar Association of Karnataka v. Union of India,5It was said the purpose
for which article 32 can be invoked is to enforce fundamental rights, violation of
fundamental rights is sine qua non of the exercise of the rights conferred by article 32.
8. The court has emphasized in Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras,6 that this court is thus
constituted the protector and guarantor of fundamental right and it cannot consistently with
the responsibility so laid upon it, refuse to entertain applications seeking protection against
infringement of such rights.
9. Article 32 guarantees constitutional remedy to the persons if the fundamental rights
guaranteed to them by the state under part III of the constitution is violated. The petitioners
in the instant matter have locus standi as their fundamental rights under article 14 and 21
guaranteed by the constitution has been infringed. Therefore, on the abovementioned
grounds the petition filed by the petitioner under article 32 are maintainable before the
court of law.
1.3) The clubbing of petitions is maintainable.
10. In the instant matter the Hon’ble court has deemed it necessary for clubbing the petitions
that are filed by the State Government and farmer’s union under article 131 and article 32
respectively, as both the matters have a common subject matter. So, for the sake of

3
Entry 14 of state list- Agriculture, including agricultural education and research; protection against pests and
prevention of plant diseases.
4
32. (1) The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the rights
conferred by this Part is guaranteed. (2) The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs,
including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, whichever
may be appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by this Part. XXX
5
AIR 2000 SC 2544.
6
AIR1950 SC 124.

13
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER CODE- IMCC_042

convenience and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, the clubbed petitions are

maintainable.
11. This Hon’ble court in Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India,7 highlighted
the power that it possess under article 142,8as “The plenary powers of this court
under Article 142 of the Constitution are inherent in the court and are complementary to
those powers which are specifically conferred on the court by various statutes though are
not limited by those statutes. These powers also exist independent of the statutes with a
view to do complete justice between the parties. These powers also exist independent of
the statutes with a view to do complete justice between the parties. These powers are of
very wide amplitude and are in the nature of supplementary powers. These power, exists
as a separate and independent basis of jurisdiction, apart from the statutes. It stands upon
the foundation, and the basis for its exercise may be put on a different and perhaps even
wider footing, to prevent injustice in the process of litigation and to do complete justice
between the parties”.
12. This is the perfect case in which the Hon’ble court can exercise its plenary powers under
article 142 as the laws in question have not only questioned the federal structure of the
nation but also violated the fundamental rights of the farmers.
13. Therefore, the council would like to submit that the petitions filed by the State Government
under article 131 and by the farmer’s union under article 32 are very well maintainable and
the Hon’ble court certainly has the power to club the petition. So, the petitions are
maintainable before the court of law.

7
AIR 1998 SC 1895.
8
142. Enforcement of decrees and orders of Supreme Court and unless as to discovery, etc
( 1 ) The Supreme Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary
for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it, and any decree so passed or orders so made
shall be enforceable throughout the territory of India in such manner as may be prescribed by or under any law
made by Parliament and, until provision in that behalf is so made, in such manner as the President may by order
prescribe
(2) Subject to the provisions of any law made in this behalf by Parliament, the Supreme Court shall, as respects
the whole of the territory of India, have all and every power to make any order for the purpose of securing the
attendance of any person, the discovery or production of any documents, or the investigation or punishment of
any contempt of itself

14
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER CODE- IMCC_042

II. That the legislative is not competent enough to enact the impugned
legislations.

14. The counsel would like to humbly submit that the legislative is not competent to pass the
3 farm laws as does not only encroach the state list of the seventh schedule, but it also
questions the federal structure enshrined in the constitution of Vijayanagara.
2.1) Article 246:
15. Article 246 of the Vijayanagara constitution defines the legislative subject matters on
which both the parliament and the state legislatures can make laws. These above spoken
matters are enumerated in 3 lists of the seventh schedule in the constitution of
Vijayanagara.9 The constitution is very clear when in article 246(3) it says that the state
has exclusive rights when it comes to the matters that are specified in state list (list II) and
the union cannot make laws in matters that are enumerated in the state list (list II) in the
seventh schedule.10
2.2) Constitutional setup:
16. A bare look at all the three lists shows that legislative lacks competence under article 246
to enact any law related to agriculture except through the gateway of entry 41 of the
concurrent list (list III). This entry, However deals with agriculture land that is evacuee
property, which is not the case in respect of the three farm laws.
Entry 14 of the state list (list II) when read with other entries like 18, 28, 30, 46, 47 and 48
of the state list gives states the exclusive legislative competence for enacting law relating
to that of agriculture. Whereas, Entries like 82, 86, 87, 88 in the union list (list I) of the
seventh schedule shows the intention of the makers of the constitution was to exclude the
matter of agriculture from the union list.
Entry 33 of concurrent list:
17. Entry 33 of the concurrent list (list III) is the ground given by union government as for the
enactment of the impugned legislations. Entry 33 of concurrent list reads as follows:-
33. Trade and commerce in, and the production, supply and distribution of,-

9
MP Jain, Indian Constitutional Law, Lexis Nexis, Eight edition, 2019, page 535.
10
246 (3) Subject to clauses (1) and (2), the Legislature of any State has exclusive power to make laws for such
State or any part thereof with respect to any of the matters enumerated in List II in the Seventh Schedule (in this
Constitution referred to as the “State List”).

15
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER CODE- IMCC_042

(a) the products of any industry where the control of such industry by the Union is declared
by Parliament by law to be expedient in the public interest, and imported goods of the same
kind as such products
(b) foodstuffs, including edible oilseeds and oils
(c) cattle fodder, including oilcakes and other concentrates
(d) raw cotton, whether ginned or not ginned, and cotton seed; and
(e) raw jute.
There is no use of the word ‘Agriculture’ anywhere in the whole entry 33 of the concurrent
list. The word foodstuff in the above entry is through which the Union Government has
enacted the said laws but the word foodstuff’s meaning in constitution in no way shows
any link with that of agricultural items. The term has a very narrow meaning under the
constitution but the Union Government in the acts passed under section 2(c) of THE
FARMERS’ PRODUCE TRADE AND COMMERCE (PROMOTION AND
FACILITATION) BILL, 2020 and 2(h)(1) of THE FARMERS (EMPOWERMENT AND
PROTECTION) AGREEMENT ON PRICE ASSURANCE AND FARM SERVICES
ACT, 2020 have increased the scope of the word by including things in addition to the ones
that were mentioned in entry 33 of the concurrent list. The union government cannot
increase the scope of a word mentioned in the constitution for their use unless they have
passed a constitution amendment for the same, in this case no constitutional amendment
was passed and the laws bought in through entry 33 of concurrent list are trading and
commerce but as far as agriculture and farming goes it is an occupation and not trading.
The acts also deal meddle with agriculture markets, Whereas, entry 28 of the state list
clearly gives state legislature exclusive jurisdiction to matters regarding market and fairs.
Therefore, the union government cannot pass the acts in question through entry 33 of the
concurrent list.
2.3) Doctrine of colourable legislation:
18. The doctrine of colourable legislation (what one cannot do directly, that cannot be done
indirectly). The doctrine becomes applicable when a legislature seeks to do something in
an indirect manner what it cannot do directly.
The essence of the matter is that a legislature having restrictive power cannot seek to do
something indirectly which it cannot accomplish directly within the scope of its power. A
legislature cannot overstep the field of competency indirectly. It is also characterized as
fraud on the constitution because no legislature can violate the constitution by employing

16
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER CODE- IMCC_042

an indirect method, this is the explanation of supreme court on colourable legislation in the
case KC Gajapati Narayan Deo v. State of Orissa.11
19. In the union list of the seventh schedule most of the entries like 82, 86, 87, 88, etc. limit
and restrict the power of the legislature to enact any law governing the area of agriculture
and yet the legislature has tried to enact farm laws indirectly through entry 33 of the
concurrent list and has clothed the legislation in a way to show it has competency, but in
the case Ashok Kumar v. Union of India it was said if the subject matter of the legislation
in substance is beyond the powers of the legislature the form in which the legislature is
clothed will not save it from condemnation.12
20. Therefore, the legislature has not purported to act within its power while the enacting the
laws in question, according to the legislature it has acted in the pretext of its legislative
power but in reality the legislature possess no such power and so the laws are to held void.
2.4) Federal Structure of the nation:
21. The government of Vijayanagara is constituted with a complex governmental mechanism
for the governance of the country known as federalism. Here both the levels of the
government divide and share the totality of the governmental functions and powers
between themselves, the distribution of legislative powers between the center and state is
the most important characteristic, rather than core, of any federal system.13
In the case ITC Limited v. Agriculture Produce Market Committee the court had
highlighted the state legislature competence even when the state legislature was denuded
of its power to make any law in relation to the matter in question in the case.14 the majority
of the bench interpreted the issue in such a way that the state legislature is not denuded of
its legislative power. In arriving at this decision majority seeks to serve certain objectives
like the powers of the state ought not to be withheld down and the concept of federalism
should be preserved.15
22. Therefore, when the union government makes laws that encroach the matters entrusted in
the state list of the seventh schedule it is not only ultra vires but also acts in complete
ignorance of the federal system that the founding fathers had envisaged in the constitution
of the country.

11
AIR 1953 SC 375
12
AIR 1991 SC 1792
13
MP Jain, Indian Constitutional Laws, Lexis Nexis, Eight edition, 2019, page 529
14
AIR 2002 SC 852
15
MP Jain, Indian Constitutional Laws, Lexis Nexis, Eight edition, 2019, page 580

17
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER CODE- IMCC_042

III. The impugned legislations are violative of the fundamental rights

of the farmers.

23. The council would like to humbly submit that the farm laws passed by the Union
Government directly violate the fundamental rights of the farmers protected under part III
of the constitution (Article 14 and 21).

3.1) The acts are in violation of article 14 of the constitution.

24. Article 14 emphasises upon equality before law and equal protection of law.16 The acts in
question are in violation of Article 14 because it confers absolute discretion on
administrative agencies and is arbitrary in nature.
25. The act gives absolute discretion to the Sub-divisional Authority to constitute a conciliation
committee. This Hon’ble Court in Sheo Nandan Paswan v. State of Bihar has pointed
out on several instances that giving unfettered discretion to and power to an authority is in
contravention of Article 14.17 This Hon’ble Court pointed out the following in Naraindas
vs. State of Madya Pradesh18 in “Article 14 ensures equality before law and strikes at
arbitrary and discriminatory state action. If power conferred by statute on any authority of
the State is vagrant and unconfined and no standards or principles are laid down by the
statute to guide and control the exercise of such power, the statute would be violative of
the equality clause, because it would permit arbitrary and capricious exercise of power,
which is the antithesis of equality before law.”
26. Section 14(2)(a)19, of THE FARMERS (EMPOWERMENT AND PROTECTION)
AGREEMENT ON PRICE ASSURANCE AND FARM SERVICES ACT, 2020 and
section 8(1),20 of THE FARMERS’ PRODUCE TRADE AND COMMERCE
(PROMOTION AND FACILITATION) ACT, 2020 gives the Sub-divisional Authority
power to setup a conciliation board if the parties have not provided for the same in the
farming agreement. However, no guidelines have been given regarding the manner in

16
14. The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the
territory of India.
17
AIR 1987 SC 877.
18
AIR 1974 SC 1232. Emphasis Supplied.
19
Section 14(2). On receipt of a dispute under sub-section (1), the Sub-Divisional Authority may, if— (a) the
farming agreement did not provide for conciliation process, constitute a conciliation board for bringing about
settlement of such dispute.
20
8. (1) In case of any dispute arising out of a transaction between the farmer and a trader under section 4, the
parties may seek a mutually acceptable solution through conciliation by filing an application to the Sub-Divisional
Magistrate who shall refer such dispute to a Conciliation Board to be appointed by him for facilitating the binding
settlement of the dispute.

18
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER CODE- IMCC_042

which the Sub-divisional Magistrate must use it power of constituting the same. The act
does not speak anything about the kind of individuals who can be made members of a
conciliation committee or even the manner in which they are to be appointed. This gives
unfettered discretion and power to the Sub-divisional Authority to pick and choose whom
soever it may deem fit.
27. Section 18, of THE FARMERS (EMPOWERMENT AND PROTECTION)
AGREEMENT ON PRICE ASSURANCE AND FARM SERVICES ACT, 2020 and
section 13, of THE FARMERS’ PRODUCE TRADE AND COMMERCE (PROMOTION
AND FACILITATION) BILL, 2020 , has expressly prevented farmers or sponsors from
initiating a suit, or prosecution or a legal proceeding against the Central Government, the
State Government, the Registration Authority, the Sub-Divisional Authority, the Appellate
Authority if they acted in “good faith”.21 This prevents farmers and sponsors from taking
action even if the Sub-Divisional Authority sets up a conciliation board in an arbitrary
manner. This in plain view violates Article 14 and the Hon’ble Court in Sudhir Chandra
vs. Tata Iron and Steel Corporation Ltd.22laid down “Our Constitution envisages a
society governed by rule of law. Absolute discretion uncontrolled by guidelines which may
permit denial of equality before law is the antithesis of rule of law. Absolute discretion not
judicially reviewable inheres the pernicious tendency to be arbitrary and is therefore
violative of Art. 14. Equality before law and absolute discretion to grant or deny benefit of
the law are diametrically opposed to each other and cannot co-exist".
28. Section 19,23 of THE FARMERS (EMPOWERMENT AND PROTECTION)
AGREEMENT ON PRICE ASSURANCE AND FARM SERVICES ACT, 2020 and
section 15, of THE FARMERS’ PRODUCE TRADE AND COMMERCE (PROMOTION
AND FACILITATION) BILL, 2020. Both the acts bars the jurisdiction of civil courts in
contractual disputes and hands over the judicial power to the executive, This Hon’ble
Court, in Firm Seth Radha Kishan vs. Administrator, Municipal Committee,
Ludhiyana24, has pointed out that even if an act expressly bars the jurisdiction of civil

21
Section 18 and Section 13 of the two acts respectively. No suit, prosecution or other legal proceeding shall lie
against the Central Government, the State Government, the Registration Authority, the Sub-Divisional Authority,
the Appellate Authority or any other person for anything which is in good faith done or intended to be done under
the provisions of this Act or any rule made thereunder.
22
AIR 1984 SC 1064. Emphasis Supplied.
23
Section 19. No civil Court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceedings in respect of any dispute
which a Sub-Divisional Authority or the Appellate Authority is empowered by or under this Act to decide and no
injunction shall be granted by any court or other authority in respect of any action taken or to be taken in pursuance
of any power conferred by or under this Act or any rules made thereunder.
24
AIR 1963 SC 1547.

19
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER CODE- IMCC_042

courts, the civil court’s jurisdiction will not be ousted completely. A suit will always lie to
question the order of the tribunal created by the statute, if the said tribunal abuses its
powers.25
3.2) That the provisions of the Essential Commodities (Amendment) Act, 2020.
29. the Essential Commodities Amendment Act, 2020 has envisaged a system that can be put
in place in the case of rising prices. Section 2 of the act in question gives the central
government the power to impose a stock limit on goods in the case of price rise. 26 The
provision, however, has two provisos. The first proviso exempts processors and ‘value
chain participants’ from the stock limit, if the stock limit of such person does not exceed
the overall ceiling of installed capacity of processing. The second proviso stipulates that
the provision shall not apply to the Public Distribution System or the Targeted Public
Distribution System made by the government.
30. The inclusion of the term ‘value chain participant’ defeats the purpose of the enactment, A
‘value chain participant’ has been defined under the explanation of the section as- “value
chain participant, in relation to any agricultural product, means and includes a set of participants,
from production of any agricultural produce in the field to final consumption, involving processing,
packaging, storage, transport and distribution, where at each stage value is added to the product”.
participants who take part in the production of any agricultural produce in the field to final
consumption, involving processing, packaging, storage, transport and distribution (where
value is added at each stage to the product).
31. So, every person who plays a role in making the agricultural produce available to the public
is exempted from the stock limit. Then every individual who plays a role from the
production to final consumption of the produce is permitted to hoard, irrespective of the
limit, it will result in more shortage than advisable and would also be deemed detrimental
for farmers as they would not be able to sell at a price of their wish. This will only result
in contradiction to the purpose of imposing a stock limit. Such a situation would create
shortage in supply and would result in increase of demand and the prices rise because of

25
Ibid.
26
(b) any action on imposing stock limit shall be based on price rise and an order for regulating stock limit of any
agricultural produce may be issued under this Act only if there is— (i) hundred per cent. increase in the retail
price of horticultural produce; or (ii) fifty per cent. increase in the retail price of non-perishable agricultural
foodstuffs, over the price prevailing immediately preceding twelve months, or average retail price of last five
years, whichever is lower: Provided that such order for regulating stock limit shall not apply to a processor or
value chain participant of any agricultural produce, if the stock limit of such person does not exceed the overall
ceiling of installed capacity of processing, or the demand for export in case of an exporter: Provided further that
nothing contained in this sub-section shall apply to any order, relating to the Public Distribution System or the
Targeted Public Distribution System, made by the Government under this Act or under any other law for the time
being in force.

20
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER CODE- IMCC_042

this, thus making it a dangerous situation as all the participants would start selling at the
same time. So, when above mentioned things start to happen the first and the last person in
the chain are the one that are most affected. This would make it difficult for the farmers to
sell their produce at a proper rate and difficult for the consumers to get the final product at
the right price.
32. As a result, the insertion of the term ‘value chain participant’ and giving it such a wide
scope is completely unreasonable and arbitrary in nature. The government should have only
exempted farmers from the stock limit, instead of exempting every other value chain
participant. As a result, must be struck down as being in violation of Article21 and Article
14.
3.3) These acts are in violation of article 21 of the constitution.
33. Article 21, has the widest ambit and is multifaceted provision that at its core emphasises
upon right to life and personal liberty. Though the article uses the phrase ‘procedure
established by law’, it must be read as ‘due process of law’ for the purpose of judicial
review.
34. Mohd. Arif vs. Supreme Court of India this Hon’ble Court has pointed out that a procedure
contemplated by Article 21 must also be in concurrence with Article 14. This Hon’ble
Court has also taken the view that Article 14 must be read with Article 21.27
35. Mithu v. State of Punjab,28the Hon’ble court laid down that any act arbitrary will
automatically fall foul of Article 21 and will conflict with due process of law as due process
of law emphasises upon how a legislation must be just, fair and reasonable. As pointed out
earlier, since the act is blatantly arbitrary, it is also in violation of the principle of due
process of law.
36. The Acts are in violation of the right to justice, This Hon’ble Court in Anita Khushwa v.
Pushpa Sadan,29 pointed out that access to justice is an integral part of Article 14 and
Article 21 of the Constitution. However, the government, through Sections 18 and 19, has
deprived individuals from taking legal action against the Sub-Divisional Authority or any
other person who might have exercised their power in and arbitrary manner. Therefore, the
act is in violation of Article 21 on this ground, too.

27
(2014) 9 SCC 737.
28
AIR 1983 SC 473.
29
AIR 2016 SC 3056.

21
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER CODE- IMCC_042

37. MSP is not guaranteed to the farmer when he comes out of the APMC market to deal with
the big companies, it scares the farmer because once farmers shift from the AMPC market
to the private market the private players will gradually do the same thing that the
middlemen did to farmers and hence violates the right to livelihood.
38. Therefore, on the abovementioned grounds the impugned legislations are in serious
violation of the fundamental rights enshrined in the Part III of the Constitution.

22
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER CODE- IMCC_042

THE PRAYER

Wherefore, In the light of the facts presented, issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities
cited, the learned counsel on behalf of the Petitioners humbly prays before the Hon,ble
Supreme Court of Vijayanagara that the court may adjudge and declare:-

1. Stay the enforcement of the unconstitutional farm laws till the outcome of the present
matter.
2. Pass any such order, direction or relief that the Hon’ble Supreme Court may deem fit
and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
3. Pass any such order in pursuance of justice, equity and good conscience.
And for this act of kindness, the counsel on behalf of the Petitioners shall duty-bound forever
pay.

THE COUNCIL ON BSEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

23