An agitation is going on against the three bills passed
by the parliament by the due process and approved by the Hon’ble President of
India. The group agitating against these Acts consists of not just a section of
farmers from Punjab but also several other groups. I do not wish to name them
here. Suffice to say that these are well identified and most of them have been
agitating against the NDA Govt from time to time.
The democratic process that we have collectively adopted,
provides for dissent to be expressed. Therefore, the rights of the protesters
and dissenters are to be defended, protected and respected. While recognizing
the rights of the dissenters we also need to protect and defend the rights of
those who support these Acts and think that these will usher in a new era of prosperity
and help raise financial position of the farmers. Certainly, it is the duty of
the Govt to respect the right of both these groups and we are sure that the
Govt will do it.
While protecting the rights of these two groups, the Govt
must also give a clear signal that the democratic process cannot be subverted
by a group of 10-20 lakh people disrupting normal like and holding the rest of
the countrymen to ransom. If such a signal is not given, it may mean that any
group which can mobilize such a gathering (10-20 lakh) shall run the Govt and
the aspirations of the masses conveyed through their
elected representatives will be stifled.
In the following paragraphs it is proposed to examine the
contents of these Acts. The three Acts are as under:
- Amendment in the Essential Commodities Act 1955.
- Farmers - The Farmers (Empowerment and Protection) Agreement in Price Assurance and Farm Services Act, 2020
- Farmers -The Farmers’ Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) Act 2020.
Let us take these up and discuss them.
Amendment in the Essential Commodities Act
1955
Before we start discussing
amendments in this Essential Commodities Act 1955, let me mention that the other
relevant Act dealing with the Essential Commodities is ‘The Prevention of Black-marketing
and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980’ and that no
amendment has been made in it. Therefore, there should not be any fear of any dilution
in the powers of the Govt in dealing with ‘Black-marketing and maintaining supplies
of the essential commodities’.
The amendment has been made in
the ‘Essential Commodities Act 1955’ by adding (i) ‘sub-section (1A) is
added in Section 3’ and by adding (ii) masks (2ply & 3ply surgical masks,
N95 masks) & hand sanitizers to the list of essential items given in the schedule
of the Act.
Amendment of Section 3
In the Section 3 a Sub-section ‘(1A)’ added after
sub-section ‘(1)’. Let me quote the sub-section (1A) which has added in
Section 3 through the amendment
Quote
Notwithstanding
anything contained in sub-section (1),-
(a)
the supply of such foodstuffs, including cereals, pulses, potato, onions,
edible oilseeds and oils, as the Central Government may, by notification in the
Official Gazette, specify, may be regulated only under extraordinary
circumstances which may include war, famine, extraordinary price rise and
natural calamity of grave nature;
(b)
any action on imposing stock limit shall be based on price rise and an order
for regulating stock limit of any agricultural produce may be issued under this
Act only if there is-
(i)
hundred per cent. increase in the retail price of horticultural produce; or
(ii)
fifty per cent. increase in the retail price of non-perishable agricultural
foodstuffs. over the price prevailing
immediately preceding twelve months, or average retail price of last five years,
whichever is lower:
Provided
that such order for regulating stock limit shall not apply to a processor or
value chain participant of any agricultural produce, if the stock limit of such
person does not exceed the overall ceiling of installed capacity of processing,
or the demand for export in case of an exporter:
Provided
further that nothing contained in this sub-section shall apply to any order,
relating to the Public Distribution System or the Targeted Public Distribution
System, made by the Government under this Act or under any other law for the
time being in force.
Explanation.-The
expression “value chain participant”, in relating to any agricultural product, means
and includes a set of participants, from production of any agricultural produce
in the field to final consumption, involving processing, packaging, storage,
transport and distribution, where at each stage value is added to the product.]
Unquote
The sub-section 1A.a states that prices
of the notified commodities may be regulated only under extra-ordinary
circumstances like war, famine, Natural Calamities and extraordinary price rise
etc. I suppose there is nothing to quarrel on this clause.
The sub-section 1A.b states that stock
limits to be imposed only if the prices rise above specified limits (100% for
horticultural and above 50% for non-perishable agricultural foodstuffs) when compared
to lower of the two prices (1) prevailing immediately preceding twelve months &
(2) average retail prices of last five years. The Public
Distribution System or the Targeted Public Distribution System have been kept
out of this provision. Therefore, any fear on account of likely hoarding of
commodities, their non-availability on this account and exceptional increase in
prices are rather ill founded.
Further the industries in food processing
business and the other participants of the value chain (as clarified in the explanation
at the end of the sub-clause) are permitted to stock up to their installed
capacities. Those familiar with Investment appraisals exercise (calculation of
Return on Investment and Sensitivity Analysis) would vouch that this is least
that can be done to reduce risk of non-availability of raw materials for the industry.
Amendment of
items in the list of Essential Commodities listed in the Schedule of the Act.
The amendment made in the
schedule is quoted below:
Quote
(8)
masks (2ply & 3ply surgical masks, N95 masks) & hand sanitizers.
Unquote
The list had 7 items and ‘masks
and sanitizers’ have been added to the list. Looking to fact that during the
current pandemic these have become an essential part cannot be denied and therefore
I suppose there is nothing to quarrel on this account.
The sub-clause uses ‘only if’
conditions which are ‘necessary’ conditions. Students of ‘Logic’ will agree
that people often find the ‘necessary’ conditions a bit difficult to appreciate.
Once explained, I am certain all will agree that there is nothing in the amendment
to agitate about. Therefore, I am certain anyone reading the amendment clause
by clause will not find any cause to quarrel on account of the amendment in the
Essential Commodities Act 1955.
