The three farm laws deal with the ‘trade and commerce’ of agricultural produce as against the

claim of the petitioner that they deal with agriculture as such. The essence of all the three
farm laws is to liberalize the trade of agricultural produced goods by opening up entire
country as a market and by institutionalizing contract farming which will directly relate the
farmers with their sellers removing the intermediaries and all the exploitation that they are
subjected to. And it lies well within the power of union government to make laws about the
‘trade and commerce’ of agricultural produce as per Entry 33 of the Concurrent list.
Furthermore, the sub-item b) of entry 33 provides for the ‘trade and commerce…’ in
foodstuffs, including edible oilseeds… This sub-item is inclusive and not exhaustive. And the
plain meaning of the term foodstuffs is “any substance with food value, specifically the raw
material of food before or after processing. This definition of foodstuffs takes in its ambit the
majority of the agricultural produce. Furthermore, sub-item d) and e) mentions two other of
the agricultural produce, i.e. raw cotton and jute. This simple implies the legislative intention
of putting trade and commerce of agricultural produce in the concurrent list. Moreover, Entry
26 of the State List which talks about the states’ power of regulating trade and commerce is
also subjected to the Entry 33 of the Concurrent List which further corroborates the
constitutional intention of empowering union government in the matter pertaining to the trade
and commerce in agricultural produce.
Furthermore, even if the petitioners’ contention of agriculture and everything related with it
falling in the state list is accepted, the Indian constitution provides for a quasi-federal
structure of the nation thereby providing the union government certain over powering
provisions under which in certain circumstances the union government is empowered to make
law on any subject enumerated in the State List. One such article of the Constitution is
Article 253. The government has made these legislations in consonance with its international
obligations arising out of the WTO’s Agreement on Agriculture, which inter alia obliges the
countries to make provisions for liberal and unrestricted trade of agricultural produce. This is
actually the essence of all the legislations currently in question.
The concerned legislations do not violate the principle of federalism because they do not
attempt to defenestrate the APMC markets established under various APMC Acts of state
governments. These legislations have just provided a parallel market system to liberalize the
trade and commerce. Furthermore, the FTPA does not restrict the state governments from
levying any tax, market fee etc. for the markets which lie well within their respective
jurisdiction but only for those markets which don’t fall under their jurisdiction and which the
state governments have never been able to levy earlier.
Right to access of justice- Speedy redressal of disputes lies at the heart of effective
adjudicatory mechanism which the concerned legislations do provide.
The laws are based on various advisory steps recommended by various commissions.

Constitution of India, Article 246(3) State List to 7th Schedule - When the

vires of an enactment is impugned, there is an initial presumption if it
is constitutionally valid - If they exists any difficulty in ascertaining the
limits of legislative power in favour of legislature, putting the most liberal
construction on the legislative Intent so that it is intra vires - Narrow
interpretation should be avoided and construction to be adopted must be
beneficial and cover amplitude of the power. (P.N. Krishan Lal v. Govt. of
Kerala, (SC)

There is a presumption of constitutionality in favour of all laws, including

pre-Constitutional laws as the Parliament, in its capacity as the
representative of the people, is deemed to act for the benefit of the people in
light of their needs and the constraints of the Constitution. Suresh Kumar
Koushal v. NAZ Foundation (SC)

to sustain the presumption of constitutionality the Court may take into

consideration matters of common knowledge, matters of common report, the
history of the times and may assume every state of facts which can be
conceived existing at the time of legislation Mohd. Hanif Quareshi v. State of
Bihar

that it must be presume that the legislature understands and correctly

appreciates the need of its own people, that its laws are directed to
problems made manifest by experience (Satyawati Sharma (Dead) by
LRs v. Union of India )