Reading time : 8 minutes
Abstract
Background: Amidst the Covid-19 Pandemic, the Govt. of India, in the guise of introducing agricultural reforms enacted three Farm Laws. Amongst farmer’s protests, several State Governments also protested against the same on the ground that the Parliament, in enacting the Farm Laws, had overstepped its legislative domain.
Objective: The objective of this paper is to determine whether or not the enactment of the Farm Laws, 2020, by the Parliament, infringed the Constitutional Principle of Federalism by violating the scheme of distribution of legislative powers as provided under Art. 246 r/w Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India.
Research Methodology: The study undertaken herein is doctrinal research based on data gathered from articles, blogs, research papers, case laws, Govt. reports and academic-books. Reliance has also been placed on statutory and constitutional provisions to substantiate the research.
Addition to Existing Knowledge and Conclusion: The author, after an analysis of the Farm Laws vis-à-vis doctrine of pith & substance, doctrine of colorable legislation and in lieu of established judicial precedents, has established that the Parliament lacked the legislative competence to enact the said Laws under the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution Therefore, it is stated that the Farm Laws undermined the Federal Structure upon which the Indian Constitution is based.
Keywords: Colorable Legislation; Farm Laws, 2020; Federalism; Legislative Competence; Pith & Substance.
Introduction
In India, agricultural markets are primarily regulated by the State Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee legislations, the chief objective of which is to ensure fair trade between buyers and sellers for effective price discovery of agricultural produce. However, the Standing Committee on Agriculture in its Report (2018-19) had submitted that the APMC laws were not implemented in their true sense and thus, there was urgent need for agricultural reforms.[1]
Based upon the same, the President of India, in 2020, under Art. 123 of the Constitution of India, promulgated three Ordinances namely, 1) The Farmers’ Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) Ordinance, 2020; 2) The Farmers’ (Empowerment and Protection) Agreement on Price Assurance and Farm Services Ordinance, 2020; 3) The Essential Commodities (Amendment) Ordinance, 2020. Subsequently, the Central Minister of Agriculture and Farmers’ Welfare introduced two bills replacing the above-mentioned ordinances which consequently received the President’s assent.
The three laws (‘Farm Laws’) so enacted, aimed to increase the availability of buyers for agricultural produce, by allowing them to trade freely without any license or stock limit, so that an increase in competition among them results in better prices. While it appears that the Farm Laws do not suffer from any fault, several State Governments have raised their objection w.r.t the Parliament’s legislative competence to enact the said laws. Thus, the author, in this paper analyses the constitutional validity of the Farm Laws vis-à-vis the Parliament’s legislative competence while also seeking to establish as to whether or not the enactment of the Farm Laws, being outside the Parliament’s scope of powers, violate the Constitutional Principle of Federalism.
Firstly, let’s understand the Constitutional provision(s) dealing with legislative competence of the Legislature and distribution of legislative powers between the Centre and States.
I. Scheme of Distribution of Legislative Powers Under the Indian Constitution
Art. 246 of the Constitution of India, clearly demarcates the legislative powers/fields of the Parliament and the State Legislatures, within which they have to operate.[2] Art. 246(1) expressly states that the Parliament has the exclusive power to enact laws w.r.t any matter enumerated in List I (‘Union List’) under the Seventh Schedule. Art. 246(3) provides that the State Legislatures are vested with the exclusive powers to make laws w.r.t the subjects enumerated in List II (‘State List’). Lastly, Art. 246(2) provides that both the Parliament and the State Legislatures have the power to make laws w.r.t the subjects enumerated under List III (‘Concurrent List’).[3]
Since, the author seeks to analyse the constitutional validity of the Farm Laws, reference has to be made to “State of A.P. v. McDowell & Co.”,[4] wherein it was held that, to determine the constitutional validity of the impugned law, it will have to be tested on 2 main grounds namely, “legislative competence and violation of fundamental rights or any other Constitutional provisions”. In the context of the present issue, it’s only the first ground which is relevant.
In this paper, the author, by relying upon Constitutional provisions, principles and judicial precedents, analyses whether or not the Parliament, by enacting the Farm Laws has violated the scheme of distribution of legislative powers under the Constitution thereby, infringing the principle of Federalism.
II. Challenge to Parliament’s Legislative Competence to enact the Farm Laws, 2020 under the Union List
The Union List under the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India consists of ninety-seven items, w.r.t which, only the Parliament has the exclusive powers to enact laws.[5] W.r.t the present issue, it is to be noted that under the Union List, there are a total of 4 entries which use/mention the word agriculture. These are Entries 82 – “Taxes on income other than agricultural income”, 86 – “Taxes on the capital value of assets, exclusive of agricultural land, of individuals and companies, taxes on capital of companies”, 87 – “Estate duty in respect of property other than agricultural land” and 88 – “Duties in respect of succession to property other than agricultural land”.
Upon a close analysis of all the above-mentioned Entries, it can be observed that the Parliament’s exclusive powers to enact laws w.r.t the same has been restricted when it comes to agricultural sector. This is evident by the usage of words like “other than” and “exclusive of”.[6]
Therefore, the author hereby submits that, the Parliament, under the Union List, has no actual legislative competence to enact the Farm Laws which deal with the subject of agriculture, as the same has been kept outside its scope.
III. Challenge to Parliament’s Legislative Competence to enact the Farm Laws, 2020 under the State List
The State Legislatures have the sole prerogative to enact laws w.r.t all of the sixty-six items enumerated under the State List under the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution.[7] Before delving into the Parliament’s legislative competence to enact the Farm Laws, 2020 under the State List, it is important to note herein that the distribution of legislative powers enumerated under Art. 246 must be strictly enforced and neither the Parliament nor the State Legislatures can encroach upon the domain reserved for the other.[8]
There are however, certain exceptions wherein the Parliament can enact laws w.r.t the items contained in the State List.[9] These exceptions are: Parliament’s power to enact laws dealing with a State subject: “(a) in the national interest,[10] or (b) while the proclamation of an emergency is in operation,[11] or (c) if two or more States agree that it is desirable to take the Parliament’s aid to enact a single legislation w.r.t a State subject,[12] or (d) for the whole of India or any territory contained therein, in furtherance of giving effect to international treaties/agreements,[13] or (e) if there is a Proclamation to that effect, in case of failure of constitutional machinery in the States.[14]” It is worthwhile to mention that, the enactment of the Farm Laws is not in furtherance of any of the above-mentioned exceptions and thus, the Parliament didn’t have the legislative competence to enact the Farm Laws even under the State List.
Regarding the State List entries, it is to be noted that ‘Agriculture’ is a State Subject as enumerated under Entry 14 of the State List and thus, only the State Legislatures have the exclusive power to legislate upon the same.
Besides Entry 14 of State List, Entries 18 (land…transfer and alienation of agricultural land, land improvement and agricultural loans…), 28 (markets and fairs), 30 (money-lending…relief of agricultural indebtedness), 45 (land revenue…and the maintenance of land records…), 47 (duties in respect of succession to agricultural land) and 48 (estate duty in respect of agricultural land), clearly establish the intention of the framers of the Constitution that “Agriculture” is exclusively a State subject which is beyond the domain of legislative powers of the Parliament. The same has been contended in the Writ-Petitions filed by Bharatiya Kisan Party[15] and D.P. Dhakad[16] against the Union of India and Ors. and Union of India Through Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers’ Welfare and Ors., respectively, wherein the constitutionality of the Farm Laws was challenged.[17]
Pursuant to the above Entries and the subject matter contained therein, it can be said that the Parliament, by enacting the Farm laws that essentially deals with agriculture which is a State subject, has impinged upon the legislative domain reserved for the State Legislatures and therefore, the same are ultra vires.
Reference has been made to the Report of Expert Committee and Inter Ministerial Task Force, constituted by the Ministry of Agriculture in 2000, wherein they had to review the present system of marketing and accordingly make recommendations. W.r.t these recommendations the State Governments had clearly expressed that, “reforms in the agricultural marketing sector… In view of liberalization of trade and emergence of global markets, it was necessary to promote development of a competitive marketing infrastructure in the country and to bring about professionalism in the management of existing market yards and market fee structure…”[18]
W.r.t the views expressed by the State Governments, as provided above, reliance has to be placed on “ITC Ltd. vs. Agricultural Produce Market Committee”,[19] wherein the Supreme Court while dealing with a conflict between a Parliamentary law i.e. the Tobacco Board Act, 1975 (defended under Entry 52 of the Union List) and Bihar’s APMC Act (defended under Entry 28 read along with Entry 66 of the State List), had upheld the State Legislature’s exclusive power to legislate on matters dealing with agriculture. The majority Bench also observed that constitution of market areas, market yards and regulation of use of facilities within such areas or yards by levying market fee is a matter of local interest and the State Legislatures are wholly competent to legislate w.r.t the same under the State List.
Therefore, keeping in mind that the views expressed by the State Governments are consistent with the Court’s observation, it can be concluded that the Parliament by enacting the Farm Laws, has encroached upon the legislative domain reserved for the State Legislatures.
Moreover, it has been held in “Greater Bombay Coop. Bank Ltd. v. United Yarn Tex (P) Ltd.”[20] that the usage of the term ‘exclusive’ under Art. 246(3) essentially denotes that, within the legislative fields contained in the State List, the State Legislatures’ authority to enact laws is as plenary and ample as the Parliament’s. Therefore, since, ‘Agriculture’ and ‘Markets’ are State subjects under List II and the Farm Laws, in principle and content deal with the same, only the State Legislatures are competent to enact laws regarding the same.
IV. Farm Laws, 2020 – Ultra-Vires under the Concurrent List
Clause (2) of Art. 246 of the Constitution empowers both the Parliament and State Legislatures to legislate w.r.t any of the 47 matters enumerated in the Concurrent List, but this power is subject to Parliament’s exclusive legislative power under Clause (1), and notwithstanding anything contained in Clause (3).[21]
Under the Concurrent List, the usage of the term ‘Agriculture’ can be traced to Entries 6 – “transfer of property other than agricultural land…” and 7 – “contracts including partnership, …but not including contracts relating to agricultural land”, both of which, akin to those contained in the Union List, exclude the matters relating to ‘Agriculture’. Thus, it is to be noted that neither the Parliament nor the State Legislatures can resort to the above-mentioned entries to enact laws regarding the same. However, ‘Agriculture’ being a State-subject, empowers the State legislature to enact laws regarding the same.
Moreover, reference has to be made to Entry 41 of the Concurrent List which empowers both the Parliament and the State Legislatures to enact laws on the subject of “custody, management and disposal of property (including agricultural land) declared by law to be evacuee property”. However, in the present case, the three Farm laws that are in question, do not relate to agricultural land and therefore, Entry 41 of List III, also cannot be resorted to by the Parliament to have enacted by the Farm Laws, 2020.
On that note, it is pertinent to note that the Centre has not resorted to any of the above-mentioned entries but has instead relied upon Entry 33 of the Concurrent List to justify its legislative action of enacting the Farm Laws.
Entry 33 of the Concurrent List reads as follows:
Trade and commerce in, and the production, supply and distribution of — (a) the products of any industry where the control of such industry by the Union is declared by Parliament by law to be expedient in the public interest, and imported goods of the same kind as such products; (b) foodstuffs, including edible oilseeds and oils; (c) cattle fodder, including oilcakes and other concentrates; (d) raw cotton, whether ginned or unginned, and cotton seed; and (e) raw jute.
At this point, it important to analyse the Farm Laws by applying two important principles of interpretation i.e., the doctrine of pith and substance and doctrine of colourable legislation.
IV.I Analysis of the Farm Laws, 2020 through the Lens of Doctrine of Pith and Substance & Doctrine of Colorable Legislation.
The doctrine of pith and substance is applied in cases where the legislative competence of a Legislature w.r.t a particular law, is challenged w.r.t entries in different Legislatives Lists, because a law dealing with a subject in one List within the competence of the enacting Legislature also incidentally touches upon a subject contained in a different legislative list which isn’t within the legislative competence of the concerned Legislature.[22] In such category of cases, the true character and the nature of the impugned legislation have to be ascertained for which the legislation as a whole, its object, scope and the effect of its provisions have to be taken into consideration following which it is to be determined that under which list does the true nature and character of the impugned law falls.[23]
In furtherance of the doctrine of pith and substance, the doctrine of colorable legislation essentially states that, “if a statute doesn’t fall within the lawful jurisdiction of a legislature in its pith and substance and transgresses into the realm of another Legislature but is made to appear in its presentation and shape as if the law were intra-vires, it would amount to a colorable legislation”.[24] It is to be noted that this doctrine is only relevant when the legislative competence of a Legislature is in question[25] and it bars a legislature from legislating on an object outside its legislative powers under the disguise/pretense of exercising its own powers.[26]
In the present case, analyzing the Farm Laws through the lens of the above-mentioned doctrines in order to ascertain as to whether or not the Parliament had the legislative competence to enact the impugned laws under the Concurrent List, reference has to be made to the Statement of Objects and Reasons of Farmers’ Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) Act, 2020 (‘Promotion and Facilitation Act’) which states that it is an Act “to provide for a parallel system for the purchase or sale of farmers’ produce outside the existing system of market yards of the State APMC”. Further, it defines farmer as, “a person engaged in the production of the farmers’ produce…”[27] and farmers’ produce as “(i) foodstuffs including cereals like wheat, rice… and raw jute”.[28]
The Parliament has incorporated terms such as ‘farmers’ and ‘farmers produce’ instead of ‘agriculturalist’ and ‘agricultural produce’, as used under Section 2(2)[29] & Section 2(1)[30] of the State Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Model Act, 2003 (‘2003 Model Act’) and Section 2(4)[31] & Section 2(3)[32] of the Model State/UT Agricultural Produce and Livestock Marketing (Promotion and Facilitation) Act, 2017 (‘2017 Model Act’) respectively.
In addition to the above, Section 3 of the Promotion and Facilitation Act, 2020 has to be referred which talks about the farmer’s freedom to conduct trade and commerce in a trade area. It is pertinent to note herein, that the usage of the phrase trade and commerce essentially refers to the basic act of buying and selling agricultural produce, which again, both under the 2003 Model Act & 2017 Model Act has been referred to as ‘marketing of the agricultural produce’ {Section 2(31)} and ‘marketing’ {Section 2(26)}, respectively.
Further, reference has to be made to Section 6 of the Promotion and Facilitation Act, 2020 which expressly prohibits States from levying market fee/cess, which is in complete contravention to the law laid down under “ITC Ltd. vs. Agricultural Produce Market Committee”.[33] It is worthwhile to mention herein that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “K.C. Gajapati Narayan Deo vs. State of Orissa”[34] has held that the State Legislature is certainly competent to enact laws dealing with imposition of taxes on agricultural income and that such a law was not a colourable piece of legislation.
Also, in “State of Rajasthan v. G. Chawla”,[35] it was held that “it is equally well settled that the power to legislate on a topic of legislation carries with it the power to legislate on an ancillary matter which can be said to be reasonably included in the power given.” Relying upon the same, it can be stated that since ‘Markets’ is a State Subject, levying market fee being an ancillary matter is something that only the State Legislatures can legislate upon. This clearly establishes an intrusion into the legislative field reserved for the States.
Reliance is also placed on “Thakur Amar Singhji vs. State of Rajasthan”,[36] wherein it was held that the name given to a legislation cannot be regarded as a conclusive record about the subject matter of the Act. Therefore, although the title of the Farm Laws has been wittily worded to give the impression that they deal with trade and commerce, the name of the Act bearing the phrase trade and commerce cannot be used to describe the subject matter of the legislation.
Moreover, the author emphasizes the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Farmers’ (Empowerment and Protection) Agreement on Price Assurance and Farm Services Act, 2020 which states that the objective of the Act is “to promote national framework on farming agreements and to empower the farmers to engage in the sale of farming produce”. It is to be noted that despite the terms used in the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the said Act, the essence of the legislation remains that it provides for a farming agreement for the purpose of purchase and sale of agricultural produce.
Therefore, it can be stated that although the usage of the nuanced words indicate that the impugned legislations deal with Trade and Commerce, which is a Concurrent subject, the pith and substance of these laws are – ‘agricultural produce’, ‘harvest of an agriculturalist’, ‘purchase and sale of agricultural produce’, and ‘marketing of agricultural produce’. Since, the pith and substance of the Farm Laws, by virtue of Entry 14 of the State List, fall under the State Legislatures’ exclusive domain, the Parliament has resorted to colorable devices to show that the laws are more connected to Entry 33 of the Concurrent List and deal with essential commodities and trade and commerce.
IV.II Doctrine of Pith & Substance & Doctrine of Colorable Legislation Vis-A-Vis the Indian Judiciary
The Hon’ble Supreme Court has often reiterated that “where the Parliament’s legislative competence to enact a law is challenged, the question that is to be asked is whether it relates to any of the entries in the State List and if it doesn’t, then no further question need be asked and Parliament’s legislative competence must be upheld.”[37]
In “State of Rajasthan vs. G. Chawla”,[38] a legislation enacted by the State Legislature under List II, which restricted the use of sound amplifiers, was challenged on the grounds that the State Legislature was not competent to do so as the matter fell within List I. It was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the impugned legislation, in its pith and substance dealt with public health and sanitation and was therefore, not invalid, even though it incidentally encroached[39] upon the Union subject of broadcasting or communication. Thus, by relying upon the same, it can be stated that in the present case, the Parliament by relying upon Entry 33 of List III will still not be competent to enact the Farm laws as these laws, in pith and substance clearly deal with agriculture and agricultural matters which is a State subject.
Lastly, it is to be noted that as already established above, the Parliament has color quoted certain terms and phrases to disguise the Farm Laws as falling under Entry 33 of List III when it actually belongs in Entry 14 of the List II. Therefore, every piece of legislation dealing with agriculture comes under the exclusive legislative competence of the State Legislatures by virtue of Entry 14 r/w Entries 18, 28, 30, 45, 47 & 48 of the State List. Thus, the Farm Laws clearly transgress into the legislative field reserved exclusively for the State Legislatures and hence, the Central Legislature has acted outside of the scope of its legislative competence to enact the same.
V. Parliament’s Strike on the Constitutional Principle of Federalism
The Indian Constitution, is based on the principle of Federalism implying that it provides for a simple demarcation of the fields under which the Central and the State Legislatures are eligible to legislate.[40] It is obvious that, “the entries in the Constitutional Lists play a significant role in examining the legislative field taking its source of power from Art. 246 of the Constitution”.[41] But in case of an encroachment of the legislative fields, the scheme of distribution of powers would stand violated thereby, violating the principle of Federalism.
In “Keshavananda Bharati vs. State of Kerala”,[42] it was held that the federal scheme of the Indian Constitution is one of its fundamental frameworks. Moreover, “the fact that under the scheme of our Constitution, greater power is conferred upon the Centre vis-à-vis the States does not mean that States are mere appendages of the Centre. Within the sphere allotted to them, the States are supreme. The Centre cannot tamper with their powers…”.[43]
In case of overlapping entries between List II and List III, the State List subject shall prevail.[44] Since, in the present case, the Parliament has not incidentally encroached upon but has instead transgressed into the legislative field reserved for the States, it has violated the federal scheme of the Constitution.
Therefore, the essence of federalism in the context of the present issue is that the exclusive authority of a legislature cannot be infringed by another. However, the Parliament by enacting the Farm Laws dealing with ‘Agriculture’, has impinged upon a legislative field exclusively reserved for the State Legislatures. Thus, a violation of the distribution of legislative powers which is one of the most important features of a Federal Constitution, automatically infringes the Federal Scheme of our Constitution, thereby, violating the basic structure of the Constitution.[45]
Conclusion
After a detailed analysis of all the Entries contained in the Union, State and the Concurrent Lists, as provided under the Seventh Schedule, it can be concluded that the enactment of the Farm Laws, 2020 violates the scheme of distribution of legislative powers provided under Art. 246. Firstly, the author has established that the Parliament lacked the legislative competence to enact the Farm Laws not only under the Union List but also the State List.
The issue, arises as the Centre claims to have enacted the Farm Laws under Entry 33 of the Concurrent List. However, it is worthwhile to mention that after analysing the scope, object and the effect of the provisions, it can be said that the Farm Laws, in pith and substance clearly deal with the subject of ‘Agriculture’, which is a State Subject. The said laws use certain nuanced terms and phrases giving the impression that they have been enacted in furtherance of a Concurrent subject, while in fact, they actually deal with a State-subject. Therefore, it is in fact, a colourable legislation.
Moreover, to conclude, it is stated that the Parliament, by enacting the Farm Laws has exceeded the scope of the legislative powers and has intentionally transgressed into the legislative field allotted to the State Legislatures by the Constitution. Such an encroachment violates the federal scheme of the Constitution of India and thereby, violating the basic structure of the Constitution.
[1] Directorate of Marketing and Inspection, “Final Report of the Committee of State Ministers, in-charge of Agriculture Marketing to Promote Reforms” (Ministry of Agriculture, 2013).
[2] State of W.B. v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, (2010) 3 SCC 571.
[3] Greater Bombay Coop. Bank Ltd. v. United Yarn Tex (P) Ltd., (2007) 6 SCC 236.
[4] (1996) 3 SCC 709.
[5] Govt. of A.P. v. J.B. Educational Society, (2005) 3 SCC 212.
[6] Bishwajit Bhattacharyya, “How Parliament overstepped itself in bringing the three Farm Laws” The Wire, 21 January 2021, available at <https://thewire.in/agriculture/how-the-parliament-overstepped-in-bringing-the-three-farm-laws> (last visited on 7 February, 2022).
[7] Kerala SEB v. Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd., (1976) 1 SCC 466.
[8] Poonam Sonwani, “Distribution of Legislative Powers under the Indian Constitution” 7 IOSR-JHSS 39-40 (2016).
[9] Uday Raj Rai, Constitutional Law I 394-397 (EBC Publishing (P) Ltd., 1st edn., 2016).
[10] The Constitution of India, art. 249.
[11] The Constitution of India, art. 250.
[12] The Constitution of India, art 252.
[13] The Constitution of India, art 253.
[14] The Constitution of India, art. 356.
[15] LiveLaw, available at: https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/pdf_upload-382414.pdf (last visited on 8 February, 2022).
[16] LiveLaw, available at: https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/new-agriculture-reform-laws-allow-big-investors-to-poor-farmers-with-liability-clauses-beyond-their-understanding-mp-farmers-leader-moves-sc-163942 (last visited 8 February, 2022).
[17] Rakesh Vaishnav and Others v. Union of India, (2021) SCC OnLine 18.
[18] Press Information Bureau, Government of India, “Task Force Set up to suggest measures”, available at: https://archive.pib.gov.in/archive/releases98/lyr2002/rsep2002/27092002/r270920028.html (last visited on 8 February, 2022).
[19] (2002) 9 SCC 232.
[20] (2007) 6 SCC 236.
[21] Ibid.
[22] E.V. Chennaiah v. State of A.P., (2005) 1 SCC 394; Attorney General for Canada v. Attorney General for British Columbia, (1930) AC 111 (PC); Russell v. R., (1882) 7 AC 829 (PC).
[23] Prafulla Kumar Mukherjee v. Bank of Commerce Ltd., (1947) SCC OnLine 6.
[24] V.N. Shukla, Constitution of India 806-807 (EBC Publishing (P) Ltd., 13th edn., 2017).
[25] B.R. Shankaranarayana v. State of Mysore, AIR 1966 SC 1571.
[26] Attorney General of Alberta v. Attorney General of Canada and Others, (1938) SCC OnLine PC 43.
[27] Farmers’ Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) Act, 2020 (Act No. 21of 2020), s. 2(b).
[28] Farmers’ Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) Act, 2020 (Act No. 21of 2020), s. 2(c).
[29] “Agriculturist means a person who is a resident of the notified area of the market and who is engaged in production of agricultural produce by himself or by hired labour or otherwise, but does not include any market functionary.”
[30] “Agricultural Produce” means all produce and commodities, whether processed or unprocessed, of agriculture, horticulture, apiculture, sericulture, livestock and products of livestock, fleeces (raw wool) and skins of animals, forest produce etc. as are specified in the schedule or declared by the Government by notification from time to time and also includes a mixture of two or more than two such products.”
[31] “a person who is engaged in production of agricultural produce including rearing of livestock by himself or by hired labor or otherwise, including tenant; “Agriculturist” also includes association of farmers, by whatever name called, registered under any law for the time being in force and is engaged in aggregation of member farmers’ produce including livestock…”
[32] “Include all produce, whether processed or not, of agriculture, horticulture, apiculture, forest excluding trees grown on private land, specified in the schedule.”
[33] Supra note 19.
[34] AIR 1953 SC 375.
[35] AIR 1959 SC 544.
[36] (1955) 2 SC 781.
[37] Union of India v. Shri Harbhajan Singh Dhillon, (1971) 2 SCC 779.
[38] Supra note 35.
[39] State of Bombay v. F.N. Balsara, AIR 1951 SC 318.
[40] Mamta Rao, Constitutional Law 775 (EBC Publishing (P) Ltd., 2nd edn., 2021).
[41] Offshore Holdings Pvt. Ltd. v. Bangalore Development Authority, (2011) 3 SCC 139.
[42] (1973) 4 SCC 225.
[43] S.R. Bommai v. Union of India, (1994) 3 SCC 1.
[44] Hoechst Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. State of Bihar, (1983) 4 SCC 45.
[45] Shreehari Aney & Abhay Anturkar, “Recasting of the Federal Structure of the Indian Constitution”, The SCC OnLine Blog, 2 April 2021 available at: <https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2021/04/02/indian-constitution/> (last visited on 16 February, 2022).
Author: Nikunj Agarwal, Symbiosis Law School, Pune
Editor: Kanishka Vaish, Senior Editor, LexLife India
Lexlife India 