“Imposing A Compromise”
(समझौता थोपना; to officially force an agreement between two sides who have different opinions, to be obeyed or received)
Courts should stay within their domain while ruling on laws
The Supreme Court’s interim order (अन्तरिम आदेश; temporary and intended order to be used or accepted until something permanent exists) in the ongoing contestation (प्रतिवाद; the act of arguing or disagreeing about something) between large sections of the farmers and the Centre over the new farm laws may be motivated by a laudable intention to break the deadlock (गतिरोध; a situation in which agreement in an argument cannot be reached) in negotiations (समझौता/बातचीत: a formal discussion between people to reach an agreement). However, it is difficult to shake off (से पीछा छुड़ाना; to get rid of something bad) the impression that the Court is seeking to impose a compromise on the farmers’ unions.
Learn How To Describe Your HOMETOWN- Village & City
One portion of the order stays the three laws, seeks to maintain the Minimum Support Price as before and prevents possible dispossession (बेदख़ली; the act of taking property away from a person or group) of farmers of their land under the new laws. The stated reason is that the stay would “assuage (शांत/कम करना; to make unpleasant feelings less strong) the hurt feelings of the farmers” and encourage them to go to the negotiating table. However, it is somewhat disconcerting (चिंताजनक; making someone feel uncertain and uncomfortable or worried) that the stay of legislation (कानून/विधान; a law or set of laws suggested by a government and made official by a parliament) is effected solely (केवल; being one only; single) as an instrument to facilitate (सुगम/सरल बनाना; to make something possible or easier) the Court’s arrangement rather than on the basis of any identified legal or constitutional infirmities (दुर्बलता/निर्बलता; physical or mental weakness) in the laws.
The order forming a four-member committee may indeed help relieve (राहत/सहायता देना; happy that something unpleasant has not happened or has ended) the current tension and allay (दूर/कम करना; to make a problem less difficult) the government’s fears that the Republic Day celebrations may be disrupted, but it is not clear if it would help the reaching of an amicable settlement (सौहार्दपूर्ण/मैत्रीपूर्ण समझौता; friendly and pleasant agreement that finishes an argument) as the Samyukt Kisan Morcha, the umbrella body spearheading (नेतृत्व करना; to lead an activity or a project) the protests, has refused to appear before the panel.
Click Here To Take SPOTTING COMMON ERRORS Tests
The Court’s approach raises the question whether it should traverse beyond (परे जाना/पार करना; to move or travel further through an area) its adjudicative role (सहायक/निर्णनायक भूमिका; acting as a judge of an argument) and pass judicial orders of significant import on the basis of sanguine hope (आशावादी उम्मीद; positive and hoping for good things) and mediational zeal (मध्यस्थता का जोश; eagerness to talk to two separate people or groups involved in a disagreement to find a solution to their problems).
The Court did make its position amply (पर्याप्त रूप से; more than enough) clear during the hearing, with the Chief Justice of India, S.A. Bobde, faulting the Centre for its failure to break the deadlock arising out of the weeks-long protest by thousands of farmers in the vicinity (आस-पास/अड़ोस-पड़ोस; the area around a place) of Delhi, demanding nothing short of an outright (पूर्णत: completely or immediately) repeal (रद्द/खंडन; removing the legal force of a law) of the laws.
It is only in the wake of the government’s perceived failure (कथित विफलता; opinion or belief about something not succeeding) that the Court has chosen to intervene, but it is unfortunate that it is not in the form of adjudicating key questions such as the constitutionality (संवैधानिकता; the quality of being allowed by constitution) of the laws, but by handing over the role of thrashing out (विचार विमर्श करके हल करना; to discuss a problem in detail until you reach an agreement or find a solution) the issues involved to a four-member panel. It is not clear how the four members on the committee were chosen, and there is already some well-founded criticism that some of them have already voiced their support for the farm laws in question.
Click Here To Take READING COMPREHENSION Tests
The Court wants the panel to give its recommendations (सिफ़ारिश; a suggestion that something is good or suitable for a particular purpose) on hearing the views of all stakeholders (हितधारक; a person or group of people who own a share in a business). Here, the exercise could turn tricky. How will the Court deal with a possible recommendation that the laws be amended?
It would be strange and even questionable if the Court directed Parliament to bring the laws in line with the committee’s views. While a negotiated settlement is always preferable (बेहतर; better or more suitable), it is equally important that judicial power is not seen as being used to dilute (कम/कमज़ोर करना; to reduce the strength of a feeling, action, etc.) the import of the protest or de-legitimise (अमान्य करना; to make something seem not valid or not acceptable) farmer unions that stay away from the proceedings of the panel or interfere with the powers of Parliament to legislate.
0 Comments