- Mr. Deepak Chatap Advocate, High Court of Bombay

Introduction:

A reality where every half-hour marks the tragic end of a farmer's life, a reality where suicide becomes a desolate solace against the backdrop of daunting challenges. This poignant narrative underscores a profound violation of human rights – the right of farmers to thrive, to endure, and to prosper. However, the implications are not confined within India's borders. Rather, they extend to an international dimension woven into the intricate fabric of trade policies, global institutions, and legislative mechanisms. The plight of Indian farmers resonates with broader questions concerning global trade dynamics, policy priorities, and the sanctity of the right to life itself. Examining this crisis demands a critical exploration of the confluence of domestic policies, international commitments, and the inexorable journey of farmers toward destitution.

International Dimension:

Amidst the lush fields and fertile plains of India, a grievous violation of human rights unfolds daily – a violation that reverberates beyond national boundaries, into the realm of international commitments and moral obligations. The intricate interplay of developed countries' higher agricultural subsidies, the World Trade Organization's inefficiency to protect the rights of developing countries farmers, and the policies of the Indian government creates a web of consequences that transcends geographical borders. The issue at hand transcends the domain of local governance, elevating the plight of Indian farmers to an international concern. 

Remarkably, the global response to this crisis remains disconcertingly muted. The United Nations, custodian of human rights, has remained alarmingly silent on the issue of "Farmer Suicides." While the Committee on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights expressed deep concern over the escalating farmer suicides in India, no specific committee or dedicated initiative has emerged to address the human rights crisis gripping the agrarian landscape. This disparity in global discourse is emblematic of a larger paradigm – one where the plight of farmers is relegated to the periphery of international conversations, eclipsed by other agendas deemed more pressing.

The framework of international human rights, meticulously crafted over decades, seemingly fails to extend its protective mantle over the tillers of the land. The International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, a testament to global consensus on human rights, bears the signature of India. Yet, the reality on the ground paints a starkly different picture. The covenant's principles of a decent standard of living, non-discrimination, and equality appear to wane in the face of the challenges faced by farmers. The international commitment to safeguarding human rights falters when confronted with the complex realities of India's agricultural crisis. In this intricate interplay of domestic policies and global responsibilities, a profound question emerges – can the right to life be compartmentalized by occupation? Is the right to exist less potent when tied to the labor of the land? The fate of India's farmers casts a disconcerting spotlight on the international community's commitment to human rights, forcing us to grapple with uncomfortable truths and compelling us to demand accountability from both national and global leadership. As the lives of farmers teeter on the precipice, their plight becomes a litmus test for the efficacy of international human rights principles and a reminder that the right to life knows no boundaries.

Discrimination in Indian Laws and Policies: Unmasking the Shadows of Constitutional Amendments

The foundational principles of justice and equality are etched into the fabric of any just society. Yet, as the pages of India's legislative history are turned, a disconcerting pattern emerges – that of discrimination woven into the very laws and policies meant to uphold these principles. A stark illustration of this can be found in the discriminatory impact of certain constitutional amendments, which, paradoxically, were envisioned to safeguard the rights and dignity of all citizens. The veil of constitutional amendments, once meant to fortify the nation's democratic framework, is now revealing shades of bias that disproportionately affect the nation's farmers, further fracturing the delicate balance between rights and governance.

Constitutional Amendments: Seeds of Disparity

Several constitutional amendments that have unfolded over the years bear a dual legacy – one of intended progress and the other of unintended consequences. The 1st Amendment, in 1951, introduced Schedule IX, ostensibly to shield certain Acts from judicial scrutiny. However, in practice, this shield has been used to safeguard laws that disproportionately affect farmers, eroding their access to legal recourse. The 4th Amendment, in 1955, empowered the government with unchecked authority to acquire land, thereby undermining farmers' rights to property and weakening their resistance against land seizures. 

The 24th Amendment, in 1971, seemingly altered the protective landscape of fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution. By prioritizing Directive Principles of State Policy over fundamental rights, the amendment tilted the balance in favor of state interests, eroding the shield that citizens were meant to enjoy against unjust laws. The 25th Amendment, in 1972, cast a shadow over individual rights, allowing policy decisions to override the foundational principles of justice and equality. These amendments, collectively, have cast a pall over the farmers' struggle, rendering them vulnerable to exploitation and dispossession. There are several other amendments whose impact is acutely felt by India's farming community. These Constitutional amendments have wielded a double-edged influence on Indian farmers, altering the legal landscape while leaving behind unintended ramifications affecting farmers' rights, land acquisition, and economic stability, shaping a complex narrative of empowerment and vulnerability within the agrarian community.

Effects of three major enactments on Indian farmers: 

In the intricate tapestry of India's agrarian landscape, three pivotal enactments – the Agricultural Land Ceiling Act, the Land Acquisition Act, and the Essential Commodities Act – assume roles of paramount significance. Amidst the evolving dynamics of policy and progress, comprehending the implications of these legislations is a pressing necessity. These acts stand as critical pillars shaping the fate of Indian farmers, intertwining their aspirations, livelihoods, and economic well-being with the complex fabric of legal frameworks. Therefore, it is imperative to delve into the implications of these enactments, dissecting their multifaceted impacts on the nation's agricultural backbone.

The Agricultural Land Ceiling Act: promises and paradoxes: 

The Agricultural Land Ceiling Act, which falls under the jurisdiction of State Governments, has had adverse consequences for Indian farmers. While the intention behind such legislation was to prevent excessive land concentration and ensure equitable distribution of agricultural land, its impact has been quite different. Varying limits are set by different states for land ceilings, with Maharashtra, for example, having a limit of 54 acres for dry land and 18 acres for irrigated agriculture.

The history of the Act's implementation reveals a complex web of consequences. When the Zamindari Abolition Acts were challenged in courts, leading to divergent rulings, Schedule IX was introduced into the Constitution to bar judicial jurisdiction over Acts included in it. This effectively sheltered the Ceiling Act from legal scrutiny, allowing it to persist unchallenged. However, the Act's limitations and discriminatory nature become evident when compared to other sectors. Industrialists can establish numerous factories, hoteliers can operate multiple hotels, and professionals face no limits on their work. Yet, farmers face restrictions on their land holdings.

The fear that lifting the Ceiling Act would lead to immediate land grabs by capitalists is unsubstantiated. The Act exclusively pertains to agricultural land, and capitalists can acquire non-agricultural land without hindrance. The idea that farmers would rush to sell their land if the Act were revoked is also misplaced. For many farmers, land constitutes a vital asset and source of livelihood, akin to a treasure that they are reluctant to relinquish. The Act's presence, while imposing restrictions, also provides a protective barrier for farmers' land holdings.

In essence, while the Agricultural Land Ceiling Act was conceived to safeguard farmers' interests, its impact has been complex and counterproductive. Its unequal application and unintended consequences demonstrate the need for a comprehensive reevaluation of its provisions to ensure that it truly serves the welfare of the farming community without unduly stifling their autonomy and economic well-being.

Essential Commodities Act: Navigating price control and price uncertainty

The Essential Commodities Act, enacted with the declared objective of regulating production, supply, distribution, pricing, and trade of certain commodities, ostensibly seeks to ensure equitable availability and fair pricing of essential products while safeguarding defense and national interests. However, a critical examination of the Act reveals inherent ambiguities and significant implications, particularly concerning its impact on farmers.

Central to the Essential Commodities Act is the conspicuous absence of a formal definition for the term "Essential Commodity." This omission yields an unsettling reality where the identification of such commodities becomes an arbitrary prerogative of the government. The Act's reliance on governmental discretion for this fundamental determination introduces a concerning level of unpredictability, rendering critical agricultural policies subject to shifting political considerations. This perplexing absence of clarity undermines the very foundation of the Act, leaving it vulnerable to misuse and misinterpretation.

The Act, enacted in 1955, holds profound implications for farmers within its regulatory ambit. It empowers the government to designate agricultural commodities as "essential," subsequently affording the state the authority to impose policies governing aspects like pricing, storage, and trade. This authority is susceptible to politicization, as witnessed when even minor price fluctuations prompt hasty inclusions of commodities like onions within the "essential" bracket, triggering consequential interventions. Consequently, farmers bear the brunt of such interventions, facing the dual challenge of uncertain market dynamics and government interventions that often disrupt the natural economic equilibrium.

In light of these issues, the Essential Commodities Act warrants a thorough reevaluation. While its intent to secure the availability of critical goods is laudable, the Act's implementation has exhibited flaws and inconsistencies that disproportionately impact agricultural producers. Amending this legislation to establish a clear definition of "essential commodities" and implementing a more transparent and consultative approach to regulatory interventions could potentially align the Act with its intended objectives while safeguarding the interests of farmers and the overall agricultural sector.

The Land Acquisition Act: the British colonial roots to contemporary concerns in brief 

The Land Acquisition Act, tracing its origins back to the British colonial era, has persisted in India's legislative framework despite the nation's attainment of independence. This historical continuity is emblematic of the complex and often contentious relationship between land acquisition policies and the rights of the farming community. The Act has undergone several iterations over the years, with notable changes in 2013 under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act. However, even with these adjustments, the overarching impact of the Act on farmers remains a topic of critical concern.

The Act's historical underpinnings are rooted in a colonial agenda to facilitate the establishment of colonies, often to the detriment of indigenous landholders. This historical context underscores the enduring disparities in land ownership and power dynamics that persist to this day. Despite being adapted and reformed, the Act continues to cast a long shadow over farmers' lives, manifesting as a sword of uncertainty poised over their livelihoods. The unpredictability of which lands will be acquired by the government obstructs the farmers' ability to plan, invest, and cultivate with confidence. This uncertainty discourages potential investors from supporting agriculture, thereby undermining the sector's stability.

The Act's mechanisms for land acquisition have, in certain instances, facilitated land transfers from farmers to private industrialists or corporations, often under the guise of development projects. This has given rise to allegations of misuse, corruption, and compromised compensation mechanisms. The shift from agricultural land to industrial or commercial use tends to dispossess farmers, displace communities, and erode the traditional agrarian way of life. In this light, the Act's historical usage mirrors the broader struggle between traditional land-based livelihoods and the interests of modern industrialization.

Comparative analysis reveals distinct approaches taken by other nations, where land acquisition has been more closely aligned with negotiated agreements between farmers and industrialists. This highlights the divergent trajectory that India's land acquisition process has taken, contributing to a palpable sense of exploitation and disenfranchisement among the farming population. The Act, while ostensibly established to facilitate national development, has too often perpetuated a power dynamic that favors political leaders, officials, and corporate entities.

In conclusion, the Land Acquisition Act's enduring presence within India's legal landscape reflects the complexities of historical legacies, economic imperatives, and power dynamics. While adjustments have been made over the years, the essential relationship between land acquisition policies and the livelihoods of farmers remains fraught with challenges. A more inclusive, transparent, and equitable approach is needed to navigate the intricate interplay between developmental objectives and the rights of those most affected – the farmers.

 Equitable Solutions:

Addressing the discrimination embedded within India's laws and policies demands a multifaceted approach. Revisiting and reforming constitutional amendments and legislations  to align them with the principles of justice and equality is an essential first step. Ensuring that laws meant to protect do not inadvertently subjugate is a critical endeavor, requiring a commitment to transparency and accountability. Furthermore, crafting legislation that truly champions farmers' rights while promoting economic growth can help bridge the divide between policy intent and ground realities.

The struggle against discrimination within laws and policies is not only a legal imperative but also a moral obligation. Farmers, the backbone of the nation's sustenance, deserve laws that uplift and empower, not ones that perpetuate bias and inequity. By scrutinizing, amending, and recalibrating the laws that shape their lives, India can tread the path toward a more just, equitable, and inclusive society. Only then can the promise of the Constitution – a promise of equality and justice for all – truly be fulfilled, unburdened by the shadows of discrimination.