The Supreme Court Wednesday said it would hear on January 11 a batch of pleas challenging the new farm laws as also the ones raising issues related to the ongoing farmers' protest at Delhi borders.
A bench headed by Chief Justice S A Bobde, which observed that there is no improvement on the ground regarding farmers'' protests, was informed by the Centre that 바카라healthy discussions바카라 are going on between the government and farmers over these issues.
Attorney General K K Venugopal said there is a good chance that parties may come to a conclusion in the near future and filing of response by the Centre on the pleas challenging the new farm laws might foreclose the negotiations between the farmers and government.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, while informing the bench that talks are going on between the government and farmers in a 바카라healthy atmosphere바카라, said that these matters should not be listed for hearing on January 8.
바카라We understand the situation and encourage the consultation. We can adjourn the matters on Monday (January 11) if you submit the same due to the ongoing consultation process,바카라 the bench said.
The top court was hearing a plea filed by advocate M L Sharma challenging the farm laws.
The bench issued notice to the Centre seeking its response on Sharma바카라s plea which has alleged that the Central government has no locus under the Constitution to frame these laws.
During the hearing, conducted through video-conferencing, the bench said at the outset, 바카라These are farm matters. Where are the other matters? When they are listed? We are going to hear all the matters together바카라.
The bench asked Mehta to find out the status of other matters and as to when they are listed.
Mehta said that no specific date was given earlier for hearing on these pleas.
바카라We are keeping this plea (filed by Sharma) for hearing on Friday and we allow the amended petition to be taken on record in the meanwhile,바카라 the bench said.
바카라M L Sharma always files startling petitions and he says that the Centre has no power to make laws,바카라 the bench observed, adding, 바카라Mr Sharma says that you (government) are colluding and making laws.바카라
The top court said it would take up the plea along with other pending matters 바카라because we think that the condition has not improved already바카라.
After Mehta said that talks are going on in 바카라healthy atmosphere바카라, the bench said it would take up these matters on January 11.
The apex court had earlier issued notice and sought the Centre바카라s response on a batch of pleas against the three contentious farm laws -- Farmers' (Empowerment and Protection) Agreement on Price Assurance and Farm Services Act, 2020, Farmers' Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) Act, 2020 and The Essential Commodities (Amendment) Act 2020.
While hearing the pleas on the issue of farmers바카라 protest, the top court had on December 17 said that the agitation should be allowed to continue 바카라without impediment바카라 and this court will not 바카라interfere바카라 with it as the right to protest is a fundamental right.
While acknowledging the right to non-violent protest of farmers, the apex court was also of the view that their right to protest should not infringe the fundamental rights of others to move freely and in getting essential food and other supplies as the right to protest cannot mean blockade of the entire city.
In its December 17 order, the bench had said: 바카라We clarify that this court will not interfere with the protest in question. Indeed the right to protest is part of a fundamental right and can as a matter of fact, be exercised subject to public order. There can certainly be no impediment in the exercise of such rights as long as it is non-violent and does not result in damage to the life and properties of other citizens and is in accordance with law.
바카라We are of the view at this stage that the farmers' protest should be allowed to continue without impediment and without any breach of peace either by the protesters or the police바카라.
