16TH SHANKARRAO KANITKAR NATIONAL ONLINE MOOT COURT COMPETITION

16TH SHANKARRAO KANITKAR NATIONAL ONLINE MOOT COURT COMPETITION

Before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, Hind Rashtra

Petition under Article 131 of the Constiution of Hind Rashtra, 1950

IN THE MATTER OF

STATE OF MAHA RAJYA ……PETITIONER

Vs.

UNION OF HIND RASHTRA ..….RESPONDENT

UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HIS COMPANION

JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF HIND RASHTRA.
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

TEAM CODE:

0
 16TH SHANKARRAO KANITKAR NATIONAL ONLINE MOOT COURT COMPETITION

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS…………………………………………………………………….. 2
2. LIST OF AUTHORITIES………………………………………………………………..... 3
a. ACTS AND STATUTES
b. LIST OF CASES
c. BOOKS REFERRED
d. DICTIONARIES REFERRED
e. WEBSITE REFERRED
3. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION…………………………………………………………….. 5
4. STATEMENT OF FACTS………………………………………………………………………… 6
5. STATEMENT OF ISSUES………………………………………………………………………... 7
6. STATEMENT OF ARGUMENTS (SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS)…………………….. 8
7. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED……………………………………………………………………… 9
8. PRAYER………………………………………………………………………………………………20

1
 16TH SHANKARRAO KANITKAR NATIONAL ONLINE MOOT COURT COMPETITION

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

AIR-All India Reporter

Art-Article
AP-Andhra Pradesh
APMC-Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee
Cl-Clause
CA-Commission Agents
Co-Company
CJ-Chief Justice
Const-Constitution of Hind Rashtra
Edn.-Edition
E.g. –Exemplum Gratia (For Example)
GDP-Gross Domestic Product
J-Justice
Ltd-Ltd
MSP-Minimum Support Price
NITI- National Institution for Transforming India
Ors-Others
Pg-Page
PPP-Public-Private Partnerships
SCC-Supreme Court Cases
SCR-Supreme Court Reporter
v. Versus
Vol-Volume

2
16TH SHANKARRAO KANITKAR NATIONAL ONLINE MOOT COURT COMPETITION

LIST OF AUTHORITIES

ACTS AND STATUTES

CONSTITUTION OF HIND RASHTRA, 1950

THE CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE.
MODEL APMC ACT, 2003.
THE FARMERS' PRODUCE TRADE AND COMMERCE (PROMOTION AND FACILITATION)
ACT, 2020.
THE FARMERS (EMPOWERMENT AND PROTECTION) AGREEMENT ON PRICE
ASSURANCE FARM SERVICES ACT. 2020.
THE ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES (AMENDMENT) ACT (ECA), 2020.

LIST OF CASES

1. I.C. GolakNath v State of Punjab, SubhaRao, C.J.

2. Ganga Ram Moolchandani v. State of Rajasthan.
3. I.T.C Limited vs. The Agricultural Produce Market Committee and Ors.
4. K Ramasubba Reddy & Ors. v. R. Vaidyanatha Iyer Secretary to govt, Education Dept
Secretariat building, Hyderabad.
5. Pt. Rishikesh v. Salma Begum.
6. Trivandrum v. General Manager, Southern Railway, Madras.
7. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala.
8. ML Karma v New India Assurance.
9. Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.
10. State of Bombay v. F.N. Balsara.
11. Prafulla Kumar Mukherjee v. Bank of Khulna.
12. ONGC v. Utpal Kumar Basu
13. Dekor Ltd. v. Subhash

BOOKS REFERRED

3
 16TH SHANKARRAO KANITKAR NATIONAL ONLINE MOOT COURT COMPETITION

MP JAIN, INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, (7th ed., LEXIS NEXIS, 2016)

th
DR. D.D. BASU, COMMENTARY ON CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, (8 ed., LEXIS NEXIS, 2010).
th
V.N. SHUKLA'S, CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, (12 ed. EASTERN BOOK COMPANY, INDIA 2013).

BRYAN A. GARNER, BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY (9th ed. West Publication, 2009)
HALSBURY’S LAWS OF INDIA, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW-II vol. 35 (Lexis Nexis Butterworths, 2007)
THE AIR MANUAL CIVIL AND CRIMINAL Vol-10 (ALL INDIA REPORTER PVT LTD NAGPUR, 6 TH
Edition, 2004
THE AIR MANUAL CIVIL AND CRIMINAL Vol-13(ALL INDIA REPORTER PVT LTD NAGPUR, 6 TH
Edition, 2004

DICTIONARIES REFERRED

Aiyar, P Ramanatha Iyer, the Law Lexicon, (2nd Ed., 2006)

Garner, Black’s Law Dictionary, (9th Ed., Thomas & West, U.S.A 1990).

WEBSITES REFERRED

www.manupatrafast.in

www.scconline.com

www.supremecourtofindia.nic.in

https://www.livelaw.in/

https://www.aironline.in/

https://www.barandbench.com/

4
 16TH SHANKARRAO KANITKAR NATIONAL ONLINE MOOT COURT COMPETITION

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Petitioner has approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Hind Rashtra under Art. 131 of the
Constitution of Hind Rashtra, 1950. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of Hind Rashtra exercises
Jurisdiction to hear and adjudicate over the matter under Art. 131 of the Constitution of Hind
Rashtra, 1950.

No other case has been filed and no proceeding is being preceded in any other court of Hind Rashtra.

The present memorandum puts forth the Facts stated, Issues raised and Arguments advanced in the
Present Case

Article 131 of the Constitution of Hind Rashtra

Original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, the
Supreme Court shall, to the exclusion of any other court, have original jurisdiction in any dispute
(a)between the Government of Hind Rashtra and one or more States; or
(b)between the Government of Hind Rashtra and any State or States on one side and one or more
other States on the other; or
(c) between two or more States, if and in so far as the dispute involves any question (whether of law
or fact) on which the existence or extent of a legal right depends: Provided that the said jurisdiction
shall not extend to a dispute arising out of any treaty, agreement, covenant, engagements, and or
other similar instrument which, having been entered into or executed before the commencement of
this Constitution, continues in operation after such commencement, or which provides that the said
jurisdiction shall not extend to such a dispute

5
 16TH SHANKARRAO KANITKAR NATIONAL ONLINE MOOT COURT COMPETITION

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. Hind Rashtra is a Democratic Republic country. Hind Rashtra has written Constitution identical
to the Constitution of India1950, having significant features like Social Justice, Federalism,
Independent Judiciary, Separation of powers. The laws in Hind Rashtra are the same as in the
Union of India. Hind Rashtra is a country with agriculture as the major occupation of its people.
After independence in 1947, Hind Rashtra faced challenges in the agricultural sector.
2. In 1955 The Essential Commodities Act was passed to ensure corrupt traders would not hoard
supplies from the consumer. The government took a view that structure of the agricultural sector
was in need to reform, stating that there is need to undertake market reforms of decades-old and
restricted Agriculture Produce and Marketing Committee (APMC) architecture.
3. The Government in 2020 introduced three bills and were passed in both the Houses of Parliament
unceremoniously
a. 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
4. The Act garnered bitter opposition in the Parliament. Various farmer organisations have also
been protesting the Act across the country. It was apprehended by the protestors that these laws
would lead to privatization of the agriculture sector. Farmers of Hind Rashtra have been
protesting against these three Farm Laws and these Laws are described as ‘Anti-farm Laws ‘by
many Farmer Unions and politicians from the opposition who say it would leave farmers at the
mercy of Corporates. Farmers also demanded the creation of Minimum Support Price (MSP) Bill
to ensure that Corporates cannot control the prices.
5. One of the states of Hind Rashtra, named as Maha Rajya filed a petition under Article
131challenging constitutionality of these Farm Laws. These laws are challenged on the ground of
violation of the principle of federalism which is the basic structure of the Constitution of Hind
Rashtra.

6
 16TH SHANKARRAO KANITKAR NATIONAL ONLINE MOOT COURT COMPETITION

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

I. Whether the farm laws passed by the Parliament of Hind Rashtra in the year 2020 are violating
the principle of Federalism of Hind Rashtra?
i. Distribution of Legislative Powers under Art.246 of the Constitution of Hind
Rashtra…………………….
ii. Violation of Principle of Federalism: Core Value of Constitution
iii. Power to legislate Farm Laws not conferred to Parliament as it being a State Subject………
II. Whether the privatization of the agricultural sector done by the Parliament of Hind Rashtra
would lead to suppression of the farmers?
i. The Perils of the Centre oriented Farm Laws

7
 16TH SHANKARRAO KANITKAR NATIONAL ONLINE MOOT COURT COMPETITION

STATEMENT OF ARGUMENTS (SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS)

I. Whether the farm laws passed by the Parliament of Hind Rashtra in the year 2020 are violating
the principle of Federalism of Hind Rashtra?
The Principle of Federalism establishes a division of powers of the Government wherein the legislative
powers are divided between the Centre and the State as per Art. 246 of the Constitution of Hind Rashtra.
The Schedule-VII of the Constitution of Hind Rashtra lays down three lists via List-I Union List, List-2
State List and List-III Concurrent List. These lists mention the subjects of work of the Central and State
Government. The farm laws as passed by the Parliament do not come under the purview of the Union
rather it is a state subject which further indeed is violating the principle of federalism misbalancing the
division of powers of the Centre and the State as laid down under the Constitution creating none the less
but concussion.

II. Whether the privatization of the agricultural sector done by the Parliament of Hind Rashtra
would lead to suppression of the farmers?

Hind Rashtra is a land of agricultural diversity is ruled under the principle of federalism wherein the
power to legislate on the subjects have been laid down under Art 246 of the Constitution of Hind
Rashtra. Agriculture being a state subject was ruled, governed and looked after the state legislature
wherein a Model APMC ACT, 2003 was enacted so as to regulate sale of the agricultural produce
within the constituted Mandis itself thus protecting the farmers from the unpleasant bargaining of
Private Individuals. However, by passing the three farm laws in the year 2020 by the Union, the
Parliament has not only encroached the state’s jurisdiction but also has turned the agricultural sector
into a private sector through which there has been removal of barriers taking away all protections-of
an assured price, of dealing with licensed agents, and of dispute settlement by the mandis
themselves. It has been observed by the farmers themselves that growing crops under the contract
farming model (for instance), the private buyers make unfair and unrealistic demands on quality,
often paying less or rejecting entire lots using quality issues as an excuse. Thus, the privatization of
the agricultural sector done by the Parliament of Hind Rashtra would not only lead to suppression of
the farmers but also encourage the Corporates to exploit the weaker and the most contributed sector
of the Hind Rashtra

8
 16TH SHANKARRAO KANITKAR NATIONAL ONLINE MOOT COURT COMPETITION

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

I. Whether the farm laws passed by the Parliament of Hind Rashtra in the year 2020 are violating
the principle of Federalism of Hind Rashtra?
The Principle of Federalism being a core value of the Constitution of Hind Rashtra establishes a division
of powers of the Government wherein the legislative powers are divided between the Centre and the
State as per Art. 246 of the Constitution of Hind Rashtra.

i Distribution of Legislative Powers under Art.246 of the Constitution of Hind

Rashtra…………………….
Art 246 of the Constitution of Hind Rashtra lays down exclusive power of the Parliament and State
Legislature to make laws on Subjects mentioned under the Union, State and Concurrent List.
Theses powers have been laid down so as for non-encroachment of powers from one Authority to the other. As
rightly held in the case of I.C. GolakNath v State of Punjab, SubhaRao, C.J opined that1

“The constitution brings into existence different constitutional entitles, namely the union, the state
and the union territories. It creates three major instruments of power, namely the Legislature, the
Executive and the Judiciary. It demarcates their jurisdiction minutely and expects them to exercise
their respective powers without overstepping their limits. They should function with the spheres
allotted to them”

Ganga Ram Moolchandani v. State of Rajasthan2the Supreme Court stated that:

“Indian Constitution is basically federal in form and is marked by the traditional characteristics of a
federal system, namely supremacy of the Constitution, division of power between the Union and
States and existence independent judiciary.”

The Division of Power of the Centre and the State has been laid down under the lists mentioned
under the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of Hind Rashtra wherein 97 subjects have been
enumerated in the Union List, 66 Subjects have been enumerated in the State List and 47 Subjects
have been enumerated in the Concurrent List giving the Centre and the State to make and amend
laws pertaining to the subjects mentioned in List-I, II and III.

1
1967 AIR 1643, 1967 SCR (2) 762
2
Appeal (civil) 6469 of 1998 Appeal (civil) 722 of 1999 Appeal (civil) 2411 of 1999

9
 16TH SHANKARRAO KANITKAR NATIONAL ONLINE MOOT COURT COMPETITION

For instance, laws like Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and Labour Laws (Exemption from
Furnishing Returns and Maintaining Registers by Certain Establishments) come under Entry No-46
and 55 of the Union List makes the Centre in absolute authority to make laws pertaining to it which
are applicable to the entire territory of India. Likewise, laws like Maharashtra Police Act and Civil
Jails Act under Entry 2 and 4 of the State List make the State the absolute authority to make laws
pertaining to it which are only applicable to the state of Maharashtra and Bombay only and not the
whole of India

Thus, the Union has powers but the constitution of Hind Rashtra has also recognized the State
Legislature power so as both the authorities work in their respective spheres mentioned and do not go
ultra-vires. As succinctly stated by the Supreme Court Pin in the case of I.T.C Limited vs. The
Agricultural Produce Market Committee and Ors3 wherein it was stated that:

“The fact that under the scheme of our Constitution, greater power is conferred upon the center vis-
a-vis the States does not mean that States are mere appendages of the center. Within the sphere
allotted to them, States are supreme. The center cannot tamper with their powers.”

ii Violation of Principle of Federalism: Core Value of Constitution

India is known as a land of Agriculture wherein two-thirds of its population is engaged in
agricultural activities.  70 percent of its rural households still depend primarily on agriculture for
their livelihood, with 82 percent of farmers being small and marginal . Keeping in mind the best
interest of farmers, Agricultural Produce Market Committees (APMC) was established by the state
governments in order to eliminate the exploitation incidences of the farmers by the intermediaries.
One of the key features of this committee was that all the food produce of the farmers were to be
brought to the market and sales are made through auction. These markets geographically divide the
state. Licenses are issued to the traders to operate within a market. The mall owners, wholesale
traders, retail traders are not given permission to purchase the produce from the farmers directly
which thus saves the farmers from exploitation of the farmers from the corporate and thus getting
income from the mercy of the corporate

Thus, agriculture being a state subject under Entry-14 of the State List of the VII Schedule of the
Constitution of Hind Rashtra and State having the exclusive jurisdiction to pass laws passed a
model Agricultural Produce Market Committee (APMC) Act in 2003 as a first attempt to bring
reformations in the agricultural markets

3
(2002)9 SCC 232:2002 SCC Online SC 129

10
 16TH SHANKARRAO KANITKAR NATIONAL ONLINE MOOT COURT COMPETITION

Provisions under this act were:

 New market channels other than APMC markets

 Private wholesale markets
 Direct purchase
 A contract for buyers and farmers
The Market Committees under the APMC Act, 2003 was responsible for:

 Ensuring transparency in the transactions and pricing system of the market area
 Providing market-led extension services to farmers  
 Ensuring that farmers are paid for the produce sold on the same day
 Promoting agricultural processing that will increase the value of the produce
 Making the availability and dates public on which the agricultural produce is brought to the
market
 Promoting and establishing public-private partnerships (PPP) in these markets. 

Thus, the farmers were secured and safeguarded in the APMC Mandis wherein the produce cannot
be sold below the MSP which in turn saves the farmers from exploitation from the corporate.
However, in the year 2020, the Parliament unceremoniously passed the three farm laws:

The Farmers' Produce Trade And Commerce (Promotion And Facilitation) Act, 2020.
The Farmers (Empowerment And Protection) Agreement On Price Assurance Farm Services Act.
2020.
The Essential Commodities (Amendment) Act (Eca), 2020.
Wherein the privatization of agriculture could be marked out from the above-mentioned laws which
in turn violated the Principle of Federalism as Centre not having the power make laws under state list
as per Cl. 3 of Art 246 of the Constitution of Hind Rashtra
If a law made by Parliament or the state legislatures is infringing any provision of the Constitution,
the Supreme Court has the power to declare such a law invalid or ultra vires. In the present
scenario, Federal Structure is one such principle that has been infringed upon by the Union of Hind
Rashtra encroaching the States power and as laid down that constitutional amendment that violates
the federal structure can be struck down in the light of the doctrine of basic structure. If the Centre
is given hold of the agricultural sector which is a state subject it would lead to control over crop
planning and cultivation, an expanding encroachment on the rights of the States, a progressive
erosion of State powers and the possibility of side stepping of democratic processes.

11
 16TH SHANKARRAO KANITKAR NATIONAL ONLINE MOOT COURT COMPETITION

As laid down in the case of RPS Junior College, Mydukur Cuddapah Ditsrict represented by its
Secretary and Correspondent, K Ramasubba Reddy & Ors. v. R. Vaidyanatha Iyer Secretary
to govt, Education Dept Secretariat building, Hyderabad4;

“The legislature is competent to make or amend validate the law declared by the court either
prospectively or retrospectively. However, if the Legislature lacks competence, then even the
amendment or validation prospectively or retrospectively always remains to be void,
unconstitutional or invalid. No legislature has power to ask the instrumentalities of the State to
disobey or disregard the decision given by the Courts.”

In Pt. Rishikesh v. Salma Begum, 5the Supreme Court held that:

“If an enacted Parliamentary law is brought into effect after enactment of a State law which had
received the assent of the President, then the State law would prevail because the parliamentary
law was the earlier law.”

By encroaching the rights of the State would lead to unitary form of Government rather the Federal
form of Government. The Parliament’s passage of the Farm Bills was an extraordinary step taken
overstepping its powers by passing the bill unceremoniously. This is not only violation of the
principle of federalism but violation of the State’s right and this needs to be rightly addressed
before this Hon’ble Court as this Hon’ble is competent to adjudicate the matter.

In the case of Kerala State represented by Chief Secretary to govt, Trivandrum v. General
Manager, Southern Railway, Madras6 it was held:

“Suit by one state against Union of India can only lie in the Supreme Court”

The Supreme Court being an independent authority is competent to declare the Acts of the Union
and States ultra-vires if either of them entrenches or is repugnant to each other or which violates
the basic structure of the Constitution of Hind Rashtra. For this, the Doctrine of Basic Structure
needs to be taken into consideration wherein it mentions that the basic features of the Constitution,
cannot be changed/amended, as they form the foundation of the Constitution on which its core
principles/existence stands. The basic features of the Constitution can be clearly observed in the
case of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala ,7 wherein bench of judges acknowledged the
basic features of the constitution. “Each judge laid out separately, what he thought were the basic
4
AIR 1989 AP 96(111): 2 Andh LT 553
5
 (1995) 4 SCC 718
6
AIR 1965 Ker 277(280) : 1965 Ker LT 327
7
(1973) 4 SCC 225; AIR 1973 SC 1461

12
 16TH SHANKARRAO KANITKAR NATIONAL ONLINE MOOT COURT COMPETITION

or essential features of the Constitution. There was no unanimity of opinion within the majority
view either.”

Sikri, C.J. explained that the concept of basic structure included:

• Supremacy of the Constitution

• Republican and democratic form of government

• Secular character of the Constitution

• Separation Of Powers between the legislature, executive and the judiciary

• federal character of the Constitution

Shelat, J. and Grover, J. added two more basic features to this list:

• the mandate to build a welfare state contained in the Directive Principles of State Policy

• unity and integrity of the nation

Hegde, J. and Mukherjea, J. identified a separate and shorter list of basic features:

• Sovereignty of India

• Democratic character of the polity

• Unity of the country

• Essential features of the individual freedoms secured to the citizens

• Mandate to build a welfare state

Jaganmohan Reddy, J. stated that elements of the basic features were to be found in
the Preamble of the Constitution and the provisions into which they translated such as:

• Sovereign democratic republic

• Parliamentary democracy

• Three organs of the State.

Thus, if a law made by Parliament or the state legislatures violates any provision of the Constitution,
the Supreme Court has the power to declare such a law invalid or ultra vires and thus the farm laws

13
 16TH SHANKARRAO KANITKAR NATIONAL ONLINE MOOT COURT COMPETITION

passed by the Parliament should be repealed as they have violated one of the core principles of the
Constitution i.e., Federalism.

iii. Power to legislate Farm Laws not conferred to Parliament as it being a State Subject………

The Centre and the States of Hind Rashtra both have been given an exclusive, particular and unique
authority to legislate laws and under the there are three lists of the Seventh Schedule of Hind
Rashtra. Agriculture being a state subject does not come under the purview of the Union List and
thus the Parliament viz the Centre does not have competence to pass laws regarding agriculture.

The Supreme Court in the case of ML Karma v New India Assurance 8 held that a presumption lies
in the Constitutionality of every legislation. Any law may be declared unconstitutional by the
competent Court if any of the following conditions is satisfied.

 The first situation in which the law would be declared void if it contravenes any of the
fundamental rights granted under Part III of the Constitution.
 Secondly, if a legislation is formed that exercises any power not present with the legislature
passing it as provided under the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution or seeks to operate beyond
the boundaries of the state passing it would be invalid to that extent as held in the case of State of
Bombay v. Bombay Education Society, it is liable to be held unconstitutional.
 The third condition under which a law is to be declared unconstitutional is when the legislature
has delegated essential functions to some other body. The Apex Court has held in the case of
Atibari Tea Co. v. State of Assam that such excess delegation renders the Act liable to be struck
down as unconstitutional.
 Fourthly, any law is to be held invalid to the extent of its contravention of any mandatory
provision of the Constitution, say Article 301.

In the present scenario the second condition exists and thus to check the competence of Parliament to
pass legislation relating to agriculture the doctrine of pith and substance needs to be taken into
consideration.

Doctrine of Pith and Substance:

8
(1992)2 SCC 36: 1992 SCC (L&S) 403: (1992)20 ATC 197: AIR 1992

14
 16TH SHANKARRAO KANITKAR NATIONAL ONLINE MOOT COURT COMPETITION

The definition of this doctrine states, within their respective spheres the state and the union
legislatures are made supreme, they should not encroach upon the sphere demarcated for the other.
As expressly stated in Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors9

“In order to see whether a particular legislative provision falls within the jurisdiction of the
legislature which has passed it, the Court must consider what constitutes in pith and substance the
true subject matter is covered by the topics enumerated in the legislative list pertaining to that
legislature.”

Thus, the doctrine of Pith and Substance is applied when legislation made by of the legislatures is
challenged or trespassed by other legisltures
Landmark Judgments

State of Bombay Vs. F.N. Balsara,10 was a case in which Bombay Prohibition Act was challenged
on the grounds that the prohibition of liquor on the borders was a matter of Central Government. The
act was held valid by the court because it was in its pith and substance and fell under the State List
though it was impacting the import of liquor.

Prafulla Kumar Mukherjee v. Bank of Khulna 11, was the case in which Bengal Money Lenders
Act, was challenged on the grounds that it limited the rate of interest and the amount recoverable by
a money lender on any loan. It was argued that promissory notes were a central matter and not a state
matter. It was held by the Privy Council that the act was in piths and substance and law with respect
to 'money lending and money lenders' was a state matter and was valid even if incidental
encroachment upon 'Promissory notes' which is Central matter was taking place.

At times when the question/concern of overlapping or encroachment of powers rises the doctrine of
Pith and substance gives a clarity towards the subject matter and in which list does it belong to. In
the current instance, Agriculture being a state subject was governed by the State legislature however
the Parliament intruding the powers passed the three farm laws. Now as per the said doctrine, the
subject matter is agriculture and the list to be taken into consideration for it is the State List Entry
No-14 which is exclusively for the State Legislatures to govern onto. Thus as per this doctrine the
subject matter in hand is out of the authority of the Union thus making the Parliament non-competent
to make laws in regards with agriculture

9
AIR 1990 SC 1927 (1951) SC
10
1951 SCR 682 (1951)2 MLJ 141 : 53 BOM LR 982
11
1947 SCC ONLINE:PC 6 :1946-1947 74 IA 23:1947 FCR 28

15
 16TH SHANKARRAO KANITKAR NATIONAL ONLINE MOOT COURT COMPETITION

II. Whether the privatization of the agricultural sector done by the Parliament of Hind Rashtra
would lead to suppression of the farmers?

Hind Rashtra is a land of agricultural diversity is ruled under the principle of federalism wherein the
power to legislate on the subjects have been laid down under Art 246 of the Constitution of Hind
Rashtra. Agriculture being a state subject was ruled, governed and looked after the state legislature
wherein a Model APMC ACT, 2003 was enacted so as to regulate sale of the agricultural produce
within the Mandis itself thus protecting the farmers from the unpleasant bargaining of Private
Individuals. However, by passing the three farm laws in the year 2020 by the Union, the Parliament
has not only encroached the state’s jurisdiction but also has turned the agricultural sector into a
private sector through which there has been removal of barriers taking away all protections-of an
assured price, of dealing with licensed agents, and of dispute settlement by the mandis themselves. It
has been observed by the farmers themselves that growing crops under the contract farming model
(for instance), the private buyers make unfair and unrealistic demands on quality, often paying less
or rejecting entire lots using quality issues as an excuse.

The Perils of the Centre oriented Farm Laws:

With more than 50% of India’s population being engaged and occupied in agriculture, the Indian
rural households are highly dependent on the farming sector. However, the parliament passing the
three farm bills have led up insecurity regarding the economic well-being of farmers.

The ongoing agitations of the farmers against the three farm laws passed are due to the reason that
monopoly of the Corporate Sector would lead to removal of the Minimum Support Price (MSP)
which in turn would lead to exploitation of the farmers which will further kill the mandis and allow
exploitative private players to set the terms of purchase from farmers.

 Working of the Agricultural Marketing Produce Committees (APMC) prior to the farm
laws:

The crystal-clear working of the APMC Mandi’s that the farmers used to trade their produce in the
APMC Mandis established by the APMC Act, 2003 through the CAs via auctioning ensuring a fair
deal to the farmers to sell their produce in turn creating transparent marketing conditions.

In spite the state having the power to legislate over the subjects mentioned in the List-II of the State
List, the Centre overstepping its power passed the three farm laws leading to privatization of the

16
 16TH SHANKARRAO KANITKAR NATIONAL ONLINE MOOT COURT COMPETITION

agricultural sector thus creating many difficulties not only for the farmers but for the State
Legislatures themselves. ( Refer figure I.i)

 The Fright of the Farmers:

Removal of MSP:

The constant fear of the farmers regarding the removal of MSP is a major concern to be taken into
consideration. They fear that encouraging tax-free private trade outside the APMC mandis will
make these mandi markets unviable, which could lead to a reduction in government procurement
itself.

The creation of private mandis will drive agriculture business towards private mandis, ending
government markets, intermediary systems and APMCs. In a scenario where more and more
trading moves out of the APMCs, these regulated market yards will lose revenues.

As a result, big corporate houses will overtake markets, thereby procuring farm produce at
incidental rates. Critics view the dismantling of the monopoly of the APMCs as a sign of ending
the assured procurement of food grains at minimum support prices (MSP). This could lead to the
increasing clout of private buyers and could lead to low bargaining powers of the farmers.

Lack of statutory support in the acts for the MSP is a major point of concern, especially for farmers
from Punjab and Haryana, where 65% of wheat (2019) is procured at MSP by the Food
Corporation of India and state agencies.

Repercussions on the State revenues

The repercussions of the farm laws would also be seen on the State revenues wherein diversion of
agricultural trade towards private mandis could lead to the loss of states’ revenues. Some states are
concerned about the loss of revenue from mandi taxes and fees, which currently range from 8.5%
in Punjab to less than 1% in some States.

Obstacle for the farmers:

Due to deficient literacy rates of farmers, the farmers may face hardship to understand the terms of
the contract which may lead to the exploitation of such farmers. Where majority of wheat is procured
at MSP from the state of Punjab and Haryana, a survey was conducted in that state wherein it was
found that the dropout rate among the children of farmers is so high that only 0.4% of the students

17
 16TH SHANKARRAO KANITKAR NATIONAL ONLINE MOOT COURT COMPETITION

reach the Postgradution level and only 5% get technical education. Also, there are only 73% of posts
of teachers are filled in rural areas.

All the three farm laws passed by the Union of Hind Rashtra all together would result in loss of
revenue, exploitation of the farmers on the basis of contracts and hoarding farm produce during
the harvest season, when prices are generally lower, and releasing it later when prices increase
undermining food security. For the reasons stated above has resulted in the arousal of cause of
action. The Elements of arousal of Cause of Action which are required to prove the petitioner’s point
are:

1. Violation of Principle of Federalism

2. Non-competence of Parliament to pass farm laws
3. Suppression of Farmers

And this aspect can be rightly observed in ONGC v. Utpal Kumar Basu,12 wherein,

“The expression “cause of action” means that bundle of facts which the petitioner must prove, if
traversed, to entitle him to a judgment in his favor by the court.”

Another case law wherein this aspect can be rightly observed is Bloom Dekor Ltd. v. Subhash
Himatlal Desai,13 wherein,

“By “cause of action” it is meant every fact, which, if traversed, it would be necessary for the
plaintiff to prove in order to support his right to a judgment of the court. In other words, a bundle of
facts which it is necessary for the plaintiff to prove in order to succeed in the suit.”

Lessons from the Past: -

Firstly, one of the foremost moves of India towards privatization was delicensing Sugar Industry in
the ear 1998 paving the path for private establishments to increase exports of sugar and overcome
shortcomings such as low production and productivity even in favorable weather conditions.
Sugarcane's contribution to the agricultural GDP has risen from about 5% in 1990-1991 to 10% in
2010-2011, but deregulation did not result in any significant rise in the farmers' incomes.

12
(1994) 4 SCC 711
13
1994) 6 SCC 322

18
 16TH SHANKARRAO KANITKAR NATIONAL ONLINE MOOT COURT COMPETITION

Productivity levels are still not optimal: The current average sugarcane productivity is around 70
tonnes per hectare--lower than in Brazil, Colombia and China, e.g.,--with huge geographical
variations, leaving much scope for improvement. (Refer Figure I.ii)

Sugarcane farmers have long agitated for better price realisation and timely payments. Also, the
contribution of private sector sugar mills to public infrastructure development remains low due to
their pursuit of profit, research has documented.

Secondly, In a state-led attempt to liberalise the agricultural market, APMCs were deregulated in
Bihar in 2006. By 2010, farmers in the state were facing high transaction charges from private
buyers and were hamstrung by the lack of information about the right prices, a committee of state
ministers reported that year.

The private sector did not develop the infrastructure necessary for the procurement of agricultural
produce in the state and with time, existing public sector facilities deteriorated, according to a
November 2019 report by the National Council of Applied Economic Research. This reduced the
density of Mandis and left the farmers at the mercy of private traders who often fixed low prices.

Bihar's agro-processing industries do not have enough infrastructure--warehouses, for example,

which are few and expensive. Due to unstable crop prices and a weak market structure, crop
diversification is poor--three crops (paddy, wheat and maize) constitute over 70% of the total
cropped area in the state.

A Niti Aayog task force report on agriculture in Bihar, released in 2015, described the abolishment
of its APMC Mandis as a "bold" move, but one undertaken without setting up adequate cold
storage facilities. It had also left farmers in the area with few options than to sell to private buyers,
the report said (refer figure I.iii) The Standing Committee on Agriculture (2018-19) recommended
that the six states that do not have APMC markets should create the infrastructure for better price
realisation. This would include provision of inputs, machinery and cold storages; better banking
and credit services as well as price information; roads and transport facilities to encourage
agricultural trade; weather updates, and so on.

19
 16TH SHANKARRAO KANITKAR NATIONAL ONLINE MOOT COURT COMPETITION

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, in the lights of the facts stated, issues raised, authorities cited and arguments
advanced, it is most humbly prayed and implored before the Hon’ble Court, that it may be graciously
pleased to adjudge and declare that –

 May it be pleased to allow the Petition filed by the Petitioner and nullify and
unconstitutionalize the three farm laws passed by the Parliament of Hind Rashtra.
 May it be pleased to allow the Petition and declare that the farm laws passed by the
Parliament of Hind Rashtra do violate the Principle of Federalism which forms the crux of the
Constitution of Hind Rashtra.
 May it be pleased to declare that the Parliament under Art.246 of the Constitution of Hind
Rashtra does not have the competence and authority to pass laws on the subject of Agriculture.
AND/OR
Pass any other order/orders as this Hon’ble Supreme Court deems fit and proper in the
circumstances of the given case and in the Light of Justice, Equity and Good Conscience.
The Counsel pleads this Hon’ble Court to bind “Sacramentum habet in se tres comites,
veritatem, justitiam et judicium veritas habenda est in jurato, Justitia et justicium in
judice.”
And for this act of Kindness and Justice the Petitioner shall be duty bound and forever pray
All of which is most humble and reverently submitted

20
16TH SHANKARRAO KANITKAR NATIONAL ONLINE MOOT COURT COMPETITION

21