WHETHER THE THREE FARM LAWS WERE VIOLATING THE INDIAN

CONSTITUTION BY INFRINGING ON STATE POWERS OVER AGRICULTURE UNDER

To establish the unconstitutionality of these laws, the following legal principles must be examined: (i) whether the laws
exceed legislative competence and fall outside the authority of Parliament; (ii) whether they are repugnant to
constitutional provisions; (iii) whether they violate the federal structure by infringing upon state autonomy; and (iv)
whether they contravene Part III of the Constitution, thereby infringing upon fundamental rights. Accordingly, the
Petitioner submits that the laws in question are ultra vires and must be declared unconstitutional.

It is humbly submitted that the three farm laws are unconstitutional as they encroach upon the State List, where
"agriculture" is explicitly placed under Entry 14 of List II of the Seventh Schedule of the Indian Constitution. The power
to legislate on agricultural matters lies primarily with the states.

While the Centre has the authority to enact laws under the Concurrent List, it is pertinent to note that Entry 33 of List III
does not explicitly mention "agriculture" as a subject, thereby preventing the Central Government from unilaterally
framing laws that directly govern agricultural trade and markets. The Centre’s attempt to regulate agriculture-based
economics without express constitutional sanction is an overreach of its legislative competence.

The passage of the three farm laws by the Union Government in 2020 led to widespread protests, particularly in Punjab
and Haryana. The central issue raised by this petition is whether these laws infringe upon the legislative powers of states
and violate the Indian Constitution. The primary contention is that these laws encroach upon the exclusive powers of
states under the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. This petition challenges the validity of these laws on various
constitutional and legal grounds.

Violation of Federalism and Encroachment on State Powers

Agriculture and Markets as State Subjects

The Constitution of India clearly demarcates the legislative domains of the Centre and the states through the Seventh
Schedule. Entry 14 of the State List places agriculture under the exclusive jurisdiction of state legislatures, while Entry 28
of the same list grants states the power to regulate markets and fairs. These provisions establish that agricultural
regulation and marketing fall within the state’s legislative competence.

However, the Union Government has sought to justify the farm laws under Entry 33 of the Concurrent List, which
pertains to trade and commerce in foodstuffs. This argument is flawed because the regulation of agriculture precedes
trade, making the enactment of these laws an unconstitutional overreach. The Supreme Court, in I.T.C. Limited v.
Agricultural Produce Market Committee (2002) 9 SCC 232, reaffirmed that agricultural marketing is within the exclusive
competence of states. Similarly, in S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994) 3 SCC 1, the Court held that federalism is a part
of the basic structure of the Constitution and that the Centre cannot arbitrarily encroach upon state powers.

The doctrine of pith and substance is also relevant in this context. Even if the Centre argues that the laws regulate trade
and commerce, their primary substance pertains to agricultural marketing, which remains a state subject. This principle
was upheld in Rustom Cavasjee Cooper v. Union of India (1970) AIR SC 564, wherein the Supreme Court emphasized
that the true nature of a law must be analyzed to determine its legislative competence.

Violation of Cooperative Federalism

The spirit of the Constitution is rooted in cooperative federalism, where both the Centre and states must work together
harmoniously. However, these laws were enacted without consulting state governments, thereby violating the principles
of democratic governance and cooperative federalism. In Kerala State Beverages (M&M) Corporation Limited v. P.P.
Suresh (2019) 9 SCC 710, the Supreme Court underscored that states must have a say in matters falling under their
exclusive jurisdiction. The farm laws undermine this principle by unilaterally stripping states of their regulatory powers
over agricultural markets.

Violation of Fundamental Rights of Farmers

Article 14: Right to Equality

The farm laws create a dual market structure by favoring private corporations over state-regulated Agricultural Produce
Market Committees (APMCs). Farmers who engage in trade outside the APMC system are deprived of the protections
available under state laws, leading to unequal treatment. Such discrimination violates Article 14 of the Constitution,
which guarantees equality before the law. In State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar (1952) AIR SC 75, the Supreme
Court held that laws must not be arbitrary and should provide equal protection to all citizens. By creating an uneven
playing field, the farm laws fail this constitutional test.

Article 19(1)(g): Right to Freedom of Trade and Occupation

The new laws significantly weaken the existing minimum support price (MSP) system, thereby disincentivizing
government procurement. This forces farmers to negotiate with private players without any statutory price protection,
thereby reducing their bargaining power. Contract farming provisions under the Farmers (Empowerment and
Protection) Agreement on Price Assurance and Farm Services Act, 2020 lack a clear price-fixing mechanism, making
farmers vulnerable to exploitation by corporate entities. The Supreme Court, in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987) 1
SCC 395, emphasized that laws must protect weaker sections of society from exploitation. The farm laws, by failing to
ensure fair trading conditions for farmers, violate this principle and infringe upon their right to freely practice their
occupation.

Article 21: Right to Livelihood

 The Essential Commodities (Amendment) Act, 2020 allows for unlimited hoarding of agricultural produce,
leading to artificial price fluctuations and threatening food security. Such measures endanger the livelihoods of
farmers and violate Article 21, which encompasses the right to livelihood.Farmers' Livelihood at Stake: The farm
laws directly affect the livelihood of millions of farmers in India, as they regulate the marketing and sale of
agricultural produce. The Farmers' Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) Act aims to allow
farmers to sell their produce outside the APMCs (Agricultural Produce Market Committees), while the Farmers
(Empowerment and Protection) Agreement on Price Assurance and Farm Services Act facilitates contract
farming.

 Farmers' primary concern is that these laws will weaken their bargaining power and expose them to market
volatility and exploitation by large corporations and private buyers. They fear that these laws will push them into
unfair contracts where they may not get a fair price for their produce, leading to a loss of income and a
compromised livelihood.
  If farmers are unable to secure a reasonable price for their produce, their right to livelihood under Article 21 is
endangered. The Minimum Support Price (MSP), which provides a guaranteed minimum income, is not legally
guaranteed under these laws, leaving farmers vulnerable to exploitation by powerful private actors.

In Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985) 3 SCC 545, the Supreme Court held that the right to livelihood is
an integral part of the right to life. By jeopardizing farmers' income sThe laws violate several fundamental rights
guaranteed under the Constitution, particularly Article 21 (Right to Life and Livelihood) and Article 19(1)(g) (Freedom to
Practice Any Profession, or to Carry on Any Occupation, Trade or Business). By deregulating the agriculture sector and
undermining the Minimum Support Price (MSP) system, these laws expose farmers to exploitation, thereby threatening
their right to livelihood. Reports indicate a significant rise in farmer suicides due to mounting financial distress, with
over 10,000 farmer suicides annually, according to National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) data. The deregulation of
agricultural markets and the uncertainty surrounding MSP could lead to a further exacerbation of this crisis, infringing
upon farmers' basic constitutional rights.tability and access to fair markets, these laws contravene this fundamental right.

The laws pose a threat to the MSP system, which has served as a safety net for farmers, ensuring a minimum price for
their produce. The Farmers (Empowerment and Protection) Agreement on Price Assurance and Farm Services Act
allows corporate entities to enter into contracts with farmers, but without any legally enforceable MSP guarantees,
leaving farmers at the mercy of market forces. The MSP system is a cornerstone of agricultural policy in India, and its
potential dismantling would exacerbate the economic crisis faced by farmers, as evidenced by data showing that over
70% of farmers in India do not receive MSP for their crops.

Right to Livelihood (Article 21):

2. Right Against Exploitation (Article 23 & 24):

 Exploitation Through Unfair Practices: The farmers argue that the three farm laws expose them to exploitation
by large corporations, middlemen, and contract farming companies. In the absence of government-mandated
safeguards like the MSP and the APMC system, farmers could be coerced into unfavorable agreements with no
guarantee of fair pricing or timely payment.

 Exploitative Contract Farming: The Farmers (Empowerment and Protection) Agreement on Price Assurance
and Farm Services Act allows private companies to enter into contracts with farmers, but the farmers have
raised concerns about the unequal bargaining power between small farmers and large corporations. Without
legal protections, farmers could be exploited, facing risks such as delayed payments, unpredictable pricing, and
lack of accountability from agribusinesses.

 This situation can be seen as a violation of the right against exploitation, which aims to protect individuals from
forced labor and trafficking under Article 23. While the farm laws do not directly deal with forced labor, they do
create conditions where farmers can be exploited economically, which infringes upon their dignity and right to
fair treatment.

3. Economic Vulnerability of Farmers:

 The majority of Indian farmers operate on small-scale holdings, and they are already highly vulnerable to market
fluctuations, indebtedness, and the changing weather conditions. These laws, which remove regulations and
safeguards, such as the MSP and the APMC system, increase the economic vulnerability of farmers, threatening
their basic right to livelihood.
  Farmers are concerned that the farm laws will lead to the privatization of agricultural markets and that they will
no longer be able to rely on the government to ensure fair prices for their produce. Without a guaranteed MSP,
many farmers fear that they will be forced to sell their crops at low prices, making it impossible for them to
support their families and sustain their livelihoods.

4. Right to Livelihood in the Context of Protests:

 Protests as a Form of Protection: The farmers' protests, including the year-long sit-in at the borders of Delhi,
can be seen as an exercise of their right to protest to protect their livelihoods. The farmers are demanding legal
assurances for a fair and dignified livelihood, including guarantees for MSP, protection from exploitation by
corporations, and the continuation of the APMC system.

 Article 19(1)(b) guarantees the right to peaceful assembly, which farmers used to voice their concerns regarding
the laws. The protests are centered around the preservation of farmers' economic security and the prevention
of exploitation, as these laws threaten their ability to earn a living in a fair and sustainable manner.

5. Impact on Rural Economy and Farmers' Well-being:

 The rural economy is deeply tied to agriculture and the livelihoods of farmers. Any law that compromises the
farmers’ right to earn a livelihood not only affects them individually but also threatens the overall well-being of
the rural economy.

 Farmers argue that these laws are more beneficial to large corporations than to the small farmers who form the
backbone of India's agricultural sector. This disproportionate benefit to private entities at the expense of
farmers' welfare constitutes economic exploitation, which is a violation of the right against exploitation under
Article 23.

Lack of Legislative Consultation and Due Process

The laws were enacted without adequate consultation with farmers, state governments, or agricultural experts,
thereby violating the principles of democratic governance and participatory lawmaking. The agricultural reforms were
pushed through hastily without assessing the socio-economic impact on farmers, especially small and marginal
farmers who are already vulnerable. This disregard for consultation violates the principle of fairness and natural
justice, as highlighted in cases such as Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), where the Supreme Court stressed
that no law should be enacted in a manner that violates procedural fairness.

The enactment of these laws was marked by a lack of stakeholder consultation. State governments, farmer unions, and
experts were not given an opportunity to present their views before the legislation was passed. This exclusion violates
democratic principles and undermines parliamentary procedures. Moreover, the laws fail to provide an effective
grievance redressal mechanism. Farmers engaging in contract farming are left at the mercy of large corporations, with
limited legal remedies available to them. In Ram Jethmalani v. Union of India (2011) 8 SCC 1, the Supreme Court ruled
that any law affecting fundamental rights must include a robust legal remedy. The absence of such a mechanism in the
farm laws further underscores their unconstitutional nature.

Commission Reports and Empirical Data Supporting Unconstitutionality

Economic Disempowerment of Farmers – The Farmers (Empowerment and Protection) Agreement on Price Assurance
and Farm Services Act, 2020 and the Farmers' Produce Trade and Commerce Act, 2020 open the door for large
corporate players to dominate the agricultural market. This will disempower small farmers, as they lack bargaining
power and access to alternative market opportunities. According to a study by the Indian Council of Agricultural
Research (ICAR), the majority of farmers (around 85%) in India are smallholders who will be vulnerable to exploitation
under such a system. The corporatization of agriculture could potentially lead to the collapse of smallholder farming,
thereby violating the constitutional goal of securing a just and equitable society for all citizens, as envisioned under the
Preamble and Directive Principles of State Policy.

Several reports and data sources reinforce the argument that these laws are detrimental to farmers and unconstitutional.
The Swaminathan Commission Report (2004) recommended strengthening APMC markets and ensuring robust
minimum support prices instead of dismantling government procurement systems.The Swaminathan Commission
Report, which advocates for MSP to be 50% higher than the cost of production, forms the basis of the farmers' demand.
They seek assurance that the government will continue to procure their produce at a reasonable price, and the laws are
seen as undermining this assurance by pushing for deregulated markets that may not prioritize MSP. Similarly, National
Sample Survey Office (NSSO) Data (2015) revealed that only 6% of farmers sell at MSP, underscoring the importance of
APMC markets as a safety net. The NITI Aayog Report (2018) also highlighted that states must retain greater autonomy
in regulating agriculture.

The APMC system and state-level agricultural taxes have been vital in uplifting both farmers and the states'
economies. Through the APMC, farmers were assured of fair prices, protected from exploitative middlemen, and
guaranteed a minimum support price (MSP) that safeguarded their livelihoods. The revenue generated from market
taxes played a crucial role in funding rural infrastructure—roads, irrigation, and storage—directly benefiting farmers
by reducing post-harvest losses and improving market access. These investments helped farmers thrive, ensuring food
security and steady incomes. Additionally, the funds were directed towards essential welfare programs like subsidies
for seeds, fertilizers, and irrigation. These reforms have empowered countless farmers, allowing them to dream of a
better future, while simultaneously contributing to state revenue and promoting rural development. The APMC
system, through its transparency and fairness, became a lifeline for the agricultural community, sustaining not just the
economy, but the very fabric of rural India. Without such systems, countless farmers would be left vulnerable, and the
states would lose their economic backbone.

It is humbly submitted that he three farm laws violate constitutional provisions, encroach upon state powers, and
undermine the fundamental rights of farmers. They contradict the principles of federalism, equality, and livelihood
protection. Based on the above arguments, it is imperative that the Supreme Court declares these laws unconstitutional
on the following grounds:

1. The laws infringe upon state powers under the State List of the Seventh Schedule.

2. They violate fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19, and 21.

3. They were enacted without adherence to cooperative federalism and democratic processes.

The petitioner, therefore, prays that the Hon’ble Court strikes down these farm laws and restores the constitutional
authority of states in regulating agricultural markets.