INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR LEGAL RESEARCH & ANALYSIS (ISSN 2582 - 6433) - VOLUME 2 ISSUE I (April 2021)
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
INTERNATIONAL
JOURNAL FOR LEGAL
RESEARCH & ANALYSIS
(ISSN 2582 – 6433)
VOLUME 2 ISSUE I
(April 2021)
Email –
editor@ijlra.com
Website – www.ijlra.com
56565656565651
www.ijlra.com
Volume I Issue X| February 2021 ISSN: 2582-6433
DISCLAIMER
No part of this publication may be reproduced or copied in any form by any means
without prior written permission of Managing Editor of IJLRA. The views
expressed in this publication are purely personal opinions of the authors and do not
reflect the views of the Editorial Team of IJLRA.
Though every effort has been made to ensure that the information in Volume I
Issue X is accurate and appropriately cited/referenced, neither the Editorial Board
nor IJLRA shall be held liable or responsible in any manner whatsever for any
consequences for any action taken by anyone on the basis of information in the
Journal.
Copyright © International Journal for Legal Research & Analysis
1
www.ijlra.com
Volume I Issue X| February 2021 ISSN: 2582-6433
EDITORIAL TEAM
EDITORS
Ms. Ezhiloviya S.P.
Nalsar Passout
Ms. Priya Singh
West Bengal National University of Juridical Science
Mr. Ritesh Kumar
Nalsar Passout
Mrs. Pooja Kothari
Practicing Advocate
Dr. Shweta Dhand
Assistant Professor
2www.ijlra.com
Volume I Issue X| February 2021 ISSN: 2582-6433
ABOUT US
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR LEGAL RESEARCH & ANLAYSIS
ISSN
2582-6433 is an Online Journal is Quarterly, Peer Review, Academic Journal,
Published online, that seeks to provide an interactive platform for the
publication of Short Articles, Long Articles, Book Review, Case Comments,
Research Papers, Essay in the field of Law & Multidisciplinary issue. Our aim
is to upgrade the level of interaction and discourse about contemporary issues
of law. We are eager to become a highly cited academic publication, through
quality contributions from students, academics, professionals from the
industry, the bar and the bench. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR
LEGAL RESEARCH & ANALYSIS ISSN
2582-6433 welcomes contributions from all legal branches, as long as the
work is original, unpublished and is in consonance with the submission
guidelines.
4www.ijlra.com
Volume I Issue X| February 2021 ISSN: 2582-6433
REVITALIZING INDIAN AGRICULTURE AND NEW FARM LAWS :
CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES AHEAD.
FARMERS PROTEST AND ARTICLE 19 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA.
By; ANSHU
ABSTRACT
Farmers are over-indebted, starving to death and price-fixing mechanisms. These three rules, if
combined, make the problem worse. In the absence of a guaranteed funding mechanism,
legislatures have even failed to cite the most powerful MSP funding as a measure of value as a
fundamental form of open agricultural trade and strengthening mandis. For years farmers have
been demanding the official price of their product support from the government. The question is
what is the basic level of that money that will be taken to double and what does it do? There is a
need to restore the agitated confidence of the agricultural sector. For that to happen the Indian
government needs to provide a warranty to keep the price line 100% above the cost associated
with inflation of the product to the main manufacturer and not allow any player to offer a price
below that line to them. Only such a guarantee will ensure farmers' confidence in the system. We
need to understand that if a country has to get out of its deepest economic crisis, the answer lies
not in the urban economy or in the economy that emanates from the capital. The solid answer lies
in restoring rural areas with dignity and respect. The country, it must be understood, cannot
survive if the collapse of rural areas and the opportunities for such an event that takes place today
can only be prevented by a policy response that is initiated with compassion and care.
5www.ijlra.com
Volume I Issue X| February 2021 ISSN: 2582-6433
TABLE OF CONTENTS.
1. Background of Fundamental
2. Article 19
3. Historical Background
4. Case Laws
5. Corona virus
6. Advancing changes in 2020
7. Farmer’s Protest
8. Peaceful Protest
1
India has been a world free of violence and disobedience, with Mahatma Gandhi's ambitious
ideals becoming more and more passing each day. The government and farmers' leaders must
reach an agreement through negotiations, eliminate the fear of farmers and reach a mutually
agreeable settlement.
Until 75 years ago, the Indian subcontinent had not yet seen the legalization of human rights.
That is why Fundamental Rights were granted to citizens after 1947, to keep the government and
the people accountable. In addition to freedom of speech, speech, work and residence, the Indian
Constitution also guarantees the right to peaceful protest. Acknowledging the situation in India,
the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), in a recent
tweet, said the right to peaceful assembly and freedom of expression must be maintained online
and offline mode. As farmers' protests continue, some sympathize with the farmer's intentions,
while others strongly condemn the same.
This is not the first time we have seen the “Right to Protest” forward. Several protests in the past
have led to many changes in the constitution. For example, Potti Sreeramulu went on a hunger
strike in the construction of Andhra Pradesh back in the early 1950s. Farmers' protests in New
Delhi are seen by some experts alike, as a right to demand what they want from the government,
while others see this as a brutal attack on a civilized society by blocking roads and vehicles. The
ongoing protests have seriously affected people's lives and created havoc for ordinary people
1
Bangalore Principles were approved and extended to the next colloquia held in Harare, Zimbabwe, on 19-22 April
1989 and Banjul, Gambia, 7-9 November 1990. Article 19 (ed.), Press Law and Practice: A Comparative Study for
Media Freedom in Europe and other Democrats (London: SECTION 19, 1993
6www.ijlra.com
Volume I Issue X| February 2021 ISSN: 2582-6433
living in cities and towns.
In fact, the Supreme Court in the case of "Maneka Gandhi vs The Union of India (1978)" ruled
that all citizens should have the right to participate in a democratic process, which allows for the
exercise of their right to hold elections, and for free and regular public discourse From a legal
point of view, the Constitution of India guarantees the right to peaceful protest, which is strongly
protected under Article 19, although the word "protest" is not explicitly stated:
• Article 19 (1) (a): Freedom of Speech and Expressing Feelings.
• Article 19 (1) (b): The right to protest peacefully without arms.
• Section 19 (1) (c): The right to form unions and unions.
However, these provisions only extend to peaceful protests, and any violence carried out in the
name of the protest is considered unconstitutional. These Supreme Court decisions confirm
constitutional guarantees of legal and non-violent protests by judgments such as "The incident of
Ramlila Maidan compared to Home Affairs Secretary, Union of India & Others, (2012)". Here,
the high court held that citizens have a fundamental right to assemble with peaceful protesters,
which cannot be removed from protest or legal action.
In light of these provisions, the kind of revolt and actions that India saw at the Red Fort in Delhi
on January 26 was not at all peaceful. In fact, Article 51A (Fundamental Duties) states that it is
the duty of all citizens of India to protect public property, to preserve the environment and
culture inclusive, among other activities. While a person cannot be prosecuted for violating these
views, it is part of the code of conduct that all Indians are expected to follow. The Red Fort is an
important part of Indian history, and has served as a national focal point for political leaders
throughout the years.
In fact, the Constitution of India itself stated that the Fundamental Rights are incomplete and
limited. If people are given complete freedom without control, it will adversely affect society.
Rights are therefore subject to reasonable limits below
Article 19 (2), Part III of the Constitution of India, where the state of India may impose
restrictions on the name of maintaining public stability and national security. The following are
situations in which people can be limited:
1. When the friendly relations we share with the neighboring country are threatened.
2. In the event of a breach of public order.
3. In the event of contempt of court.
4. When the sovereignty and integrity of India is threatened.
The Supreme Court in the case of “Railways Board Vs Niranjan Singh”, has noted the same limit
and right to protest. The verdict indicates that the protest and the rally are not valid on the day of
the violation of another person's property. The judgment therefore states that all reasonable limits
are imposed on the interests of the Indian national security, friendly relations with foreign
countries, and social order. It cannot be negligent in nature.
Given the history of farmers' protests in Delhi, the "Chakka jam" at the National Capital on the
6th of this month symbolized violence. These ongoing protests have received the attention of the
international media, with celebrities in India and abroad saying the same thing. The Ministry of
Foreign Affairs released a press release this month announcing that “Some of these interest
groups have also tried to rally international support against India. Motivated by these fringes,
images of Mahatma Gandhi have been desecrated in parts of the world. This is seriously
affectin2g India and a civilized society everywhere. ”Therefore, any protest that promotes
violence and that incites people in any way is illegal and inconsistent with the status quo of
Indians.
2
). Balancing: Hate Speech, Freedom of Expression and Non-Discrimination (London: SECTION 19 / University of
Essex, 1992). E Barendt, Freedom of Speech (Oxford University Press, 1985). Broadcasting Law: A Law Study in
Europe and the United States (Oxford University Press, 1993). A Bayefsky and J J Fitzpatrick, "International Human
Rights Law in United States Courts: A Comparative view ", 14 Michigan J Int'l L (1993), 1. T Buergenthal, "American-
European Conference on Human Rights : Similarities and Differences ", 30 American U L Rev (1981), 155.
7www.ijlra.com
Volume I Issue X| February 2021 ISSN: 2582-6433
India has been a world free of violence and disobedience, with Mahatma Gandhi's ambitious
ideals becoming more and more passing each day. The government and farmers' leaders must
reach an agreement through negotiations, eliminate the fear of farmers and reach a mutually
agreeable settlement.
2020 has been a difficult year for us humans, with Coronavirus infecting and killing people, the
world completely closed, economic corruption, violation of immigrant labor rights, and many
other such tragedies are listed. But for us Indians this year and it has been very difficult, we have
been protesting all year for various reasons; we have entered the year with a nationwide CAA-
NRC protest, ending a year of farmers protesting against three new farm rules; not only were
these when the world was closed and people all over the world were locked up in their homes,
then protests continued in India as nurses and doctors protested against unpaid wages, civil
servants protesting unemployment, students protesting inflation, scholarships, and attacks on
their institutions. Looking at all these protests we can safely say that 2020 was a year of protests
in India; and, every citizen of the nation should be aware of this right granted by the Constitution
of India. The protest has a long and positive history in India. India was a colony ruled by
Britishers 72 years ago. From then on, to this day, the right to peaceful protest or assembly
reflects the concept of democracy. Following the enactment of the Constitution, Article 19 (1) of
the Constitution of India became one of the most important articles guaranteeing ‘fundamental
freedom’ for all citizens of India; and, Article 19 (1) (b) guarantees all citizens of India to
assemble peacefully without arms. The right to peaceful protest gives the right to question and
oppose government laws and policies in the form of protest, exploitation, and public gatherings.
Protests play a major role in the social, political, economic, social and cultural life of all
communities. In the whole democratic society, the voice of opposition is very important.
Peaceful protests are a vital tool in the fight against dictatorships. In the case of Ram Lila
Maidan v. The Secretary of State for Home Affairs, Union of India [(2012) 5 SCC 1], the
Honorary High Court had ruled that citizens had a basic right to peaceful assembly and protest;
“Freedom of speech, the right to assemble and demonstrate by holding dharnas and peaceful riots
are fundamental elements of democracy. The people of a democratic country like us have the
right to raise their voices against the decisions and actions of the Government or even to express
their anger at the actions of the Government in any matter of social or national importance.
Government must respect and, in fact, promote the exercise of these rights. It must work on the
constitutional rights rather than changing it. ”
The right to protest is a key element of democracy in bringing about change and advancing the
development of the country; it is the constitutional right of citizens, and their moral duty to
protest unjustly. The effective exercise of the right to protest ensures the role of the people as
agents who are constantly monitoring government action and ensuring fairness. In a democracy
where the government did not respond and refused to listen to them it became the first weapon of
the people; this establishes the fact that a peaceful protest is a fundamental right and a lifeline for
all democracies, otherwise there will be little or no accountability for the current government,
and all citizens will have to wait for elections to express their disagreement with it. To Anita
Thakur & Ors. v. J & K & Ors Status. [2016 SCC OnLine SC 814] Justice AK Sikri, said that;
“One of the most popular aspects of Indian political life is the practice of expressing grievances
through direct action or by peaceful protest. Organized, non-violent protests have been a major
weapon in the liberation struggle, and the right to protest is now considered a fundamental right
in the Constitution. ”
Recently, we have seen unprecedented civil protests in India; but the protests that have received
the most support in the country are the ones that have arisen after the passing of civil laws and
farm regulations. Toward the end of 2020, thousands of people gathered on the streets
demanding that the government reconsider the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019; a wave of
protest against the new citizenship law began in cities throughout India, and Protest spread to
more than a dozen cities. However, in early 2020 the most popular protest was the Shaheen Bagh
Protest; it was a peaceful protest led by women. The protest began on December 14, 2019; but
gained momentum in January 2020. With crowds reaching up to 100,000+; the protests became
8www.ijlra.com
Volume I Issue X| February 2021 ISSN: 2582-6433
one of the longest and largest in modern-day India. The protest site was G D Birla Marg in the
national capital, and later many attempts were made to end the protest in the name of removing
roadblocks. The Delhi High Court bench initially led by Chief Justice DN Patel initially refused
to grant a request to relocate the protester. Later, Attorney Amit Sahni filed an application with
the Honorable High Court; where the court upheld the right to peaceful protest, but made it clear
that public roads and public spaces could not and would not last forever. The right to protest in a
public place must be equated with the general public's right to freedom of movement.
Fundamental rights do not live alone, the right of the protester must be equal to the right of the
passenger and must be co-existent.
In Hima3t Lal K. Shah v. Commissioner of Police [AIR 1973 SC 87], Hon'ble High Court held
that the right to hold meetings on public roads depended on - (a) the administration of the
relevant authorities in respect of the time and place of the meeting; and (b) public order
consideration. Moreover, in 2017 Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan v. Union of India [AIR 2018
SC 3476], the Honorable High Court reiterated the same policy and held that;
“The court should have considered the control of the protests at the Jantar Mantar in New Delhi.
In order to create a balance between the interests of the community and the right to protest, it
instructed police officers to devise a system of limited use of protest space. It noted that each
basic right, whether individual or class, does not exist in isolation and should be limited to that of
its partners. ”
History proves that declaring peace in the community is a sign of strong democracy. India, the
largest and most effective democracy, has also become a center of cultural expression that
encompasses the right of citizens to free speech; but like all other rights, the right to peaceful
protest comes with certain restrictions provided for in Article 19 (2) of the Constitution of India
or established by the Apex Court. In Railways Board v. Niranjan Singh [AIR 1969 SC 966],
Court noted that;
“This restriction indicates the right to protest / assembly does not apply to the right to access any
property. All the restrictions are placed on the interests of the Indian monarchy and integrity,
national security, friendly relations with foreign countries, social order and it is not inherently
contradictory. Therefore, citizens must remember and perform their duties while exercising their
rights. 4”
The latest addition to the series of protests is farmers' protests. Since the end of 2020 India has
witnessed massive protests at the Delhi border, held by farmers in various districts; the protests
began after the Indian Parliament passed three new farm laws, namely, the Farmers' Agreement
(Security and Safety Promotion) in the Assurance Price and Services Services Act, 2020;
Farmers Make Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Promotion) Act, 2020; Essential
Commodities (Amendment) Act, 2020. Farmers are protesting against the abolition of these three
laws and ensuring MSP (low selling price); as they fear that by enforcing these laws, they will
become captives in companies.
A peaceful protest could be seen as a fundamental right and a lifeline of democracy, and in its
absence, the democratic system cannot function properly, as the protests show an independent,
democratic society in which the voice of the people is heard. Therefore, the right to peaceful
3
). Balancing: Hate Speech, Freedom of Expression and Non-Discrimination (London: SECTION 19 / University of
Essex, 1992). E Barendt, Freedom of Speech (Oxford University Press, 1985). Broadcasting Law: A Law Study in
Europe and the United States (Oxford University Press, 1993). A Bayefsky and J J Fitzpatrick, "International Human
Rights Law in United States Courts: A Comparative view ", 14 Michigan J Int'l L (1993), 1. T Buergenthal, "American-
European Conference on Human Rights : Similarities and Differences ", 30 American U L Rev (1981), 155.
4
). Balancing: Hate Speech, Freedom of Expression and Non-Discrimination (London: SECTION 19 / University of
Essex, 1992). E Barendt, Freedom of Speech (Oxford University Press, 1985). Broadcasting Law: A Law Study in
Europe and the United States (Oxford University Press, 1993). A Bayefsky and J J Fitzpatrick, "International Human
Rights Law in United States Courts: A Comparative view ", 14 Michigan J Int'l L (1993), 1. T Buergenthal, "American-
European Conference on Human Rights : Similarities and Differences ", 30 American U L Rev (1981), 155.
9www.ijlra.com
Volume I Issue X| February 2021 ISSN: 2582-6433
protest is fundamental in a democratic country and should be exercised where necessary, and
instead of undermining this fundamental right, the government should help citizens to exercise
their basic right.
ANSHU
10You can also read
