Farmers' Legal Rights: New Law And Court Access

Farmers' protests have been a common occurrence in India since 2020, with farmers protesting against new agricultural laws that they believe will adversely affect them economically. In response to these protests, the Supreme Court of India suspended the implementation of three controversial farm laws in 2021, stating that the laws may be constitutionally justifiable, but the farmers have a right to protest against them. In the United States, a court ruling stated that farmers who operate corporations and limited liability companies are required to file Beneficial Ownership Information with the U.S. Department of Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network or face fines or jail time. This ruling puts tens of thousands of farmers at legal risk.

Can farmers go to court as per new law?

Farmers' protests in India

The Indian government, however, defended the laws, stating that they would make it easier for farmers to sell their produce directly to large buyers and arguing that the protests were based on misinformation. They also claimed that the protests were infiltrated by foreign conspirators and only represented a small group of farmers. In response to the protests, the government employed tactics such as blocking protesters' entry into Delhi and using water cannons, batons, and tear gas to disperse them. On 26 January 2021, during India's Republic Day celebrations, clashes broke out between police and protesters, resulting in the death of one protester and injuries to over 300 policemen.

Despite the government's defence, the farm laws were eventually repealed in November 2021 after nearly a year of protests. This decision was made by the Indian Prime Minister, Narendra Modi, who announced that his government would revoke the laws. The protests highlighted deep-seated issues within the Indian agricultural sector, including small landholdings, low productivity, and challenges such as access to credit, technology, education, and severe weather conditions. These factors have contributed to distress among farmers, with a significant number of suicides occurring annually.

The farmers' protests in India gained international attention, with images of elderly farmers from Punjab and Haryana being tear-gassed and sprayed with water during the winter going viral and eliciting sympathy from people worldwide. The Canadian Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, expressed concern over India's response to the demonstrations, drawing a sharp response from India's foreign ministry. The protests also sparked discussions about the role of social media in amplifying voices of dissent and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on governance and protest movements.

Farmers' right to protest

Farmers' protests in India have been ongoing since 2020, with farmers demonstrating against agricultural reforms and three new farm laws that they believe will adversely affect them economically. The protests have been largely peaceful, with farmers gathering in New Delhi and other cities, disrupting traffic and business.

The right to peaceful protest is an important tenet of democracy, and the Indian Supreme Court has recognised this by suspending the implementation of the controversial agricultural laws and appointing an expert committee to find a solution. However, the committee's members support the laws, and farmers' representatives have dismissed them as pro-government mediators.

The farmers' leaders insist that the laws must be completely repealed, and they are right to protest. The agricultural sector in India contributes about 15% of national income, but more than half of the country's workers depend on it for their livelihood. Many are small farmers, sharecroppers, and landless labourers who struggle with precarious wages, shrinking plots of land, and the unpredictability of the monsoon season.

The new farm laws were passed without input from key farming groups or agricultural unions, and farmers were not consulted. This has led to a trust deficit between the government and farmers, with the latter feeling that their concerns are not being addressed.

Internationally, there has been support for the farmers' right to protest, with Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, United Nations secretary-general António Guterres, and American politicians Bob Menendez and Chuck Schumer all expressing concern about the handling of the protests or support for the farmers' right to demonstrate peacefully.

Farmers' right to legal representation

The specifics of Right-to-Farm laws differ from state to state. For instance, New York's Right-to-Farm Statute protects farm owners and operators from private nuisance suits as long as their practices align with sound agricultural standards. On the other hand, New York's policy does not offer protection against personal injury or wrongful death claims. Other states like Texas, Utah, and West Virginia have passed similar legislation, with Texas enshrining the right to engage in "generally accepted" farming practices in its state constitution.

In contrast, India witnessed widespread farmers' protests against controversial agricultural reforms introduced by Prime Minister Narendra Modi's government. The reforms were intended to regularize the country's farming industry and remove financial burdens on farmers, but farmers argued that they were not consulted during the legislative process and that the laws would negatively impact them economically. As a result, India's Supreme Court suspended the implementation of the new farm laws, but farmers continued to demand a full repeal, highlighting the ongoing struggle for legal representation and fair treatment in the agricultural sector.

Farmers' right to fair contract terms

Farmers have been protesting against new agricultural laws in India, which they feel will adversely affect them economically. In response, India's Supreme Court suspended the implementation of the controversial agricultural laws, but farmers are still calling for a full repeal of the new farm laws.

In the context of fair contract terms, farmers face unique adhesion contract problems, especially in two situations. Firstly, in "production contracts", where farmers contract with food processing companies to produce crops or livestock, they may be subject to unfair compensation terms, unilateral termination clauses, and mandatory arbitration clauses. Secondly, when planting genetically modified crops, farmers can be bound by adhesion contracts with unfair terms, even if they have not read or signed anything. These contracts can include harsh provisions, such as penalties for saving seeds and various restrictive provisions.

To address these issues, there have been proposals for the adoption of the Model Producer Protection Act, and some states in the US have passed legislation regulating production contracts. However, the majority of jurisdictions still allow unfair adhesion contract terms. Farmer fair share boards have been proposed as a solution, empowering farmers to collectively bargain for fair compensation and contract terms. Additionally, alternative bargaining models and pricing models can be used to ensure farmers receive a fair share of the returns on their commodities.

In the United States, a court ruling has also impacted farmers' legal obligations. Tens of thousands of farmers are now required to register their businesses with the federal government or face fines or jail time. This ruling highlights the legal risks that farmers may encounter and the importance of staying informed about their obligations.

Farmers' right to dispute resolution

Farmers' protests have been a significant issue in India and the United States in recent years. In India, farmers have been protesting new agricultural laws that they believe will adversely affect them economically. In the United States, a court ruling has put farmers at risk of legal repercussions for failing to register their businesses with the federal government.

In response to these issues, there have been calls for the protection and expansion of farmers' rights. In the United States, the Farmers Bill of Rights includes the right to fair, open markets, the right to feed their community, and the right to protect natural resources. The bill also addresses the right to repair, the right to transparent labelling, and the right to rural opportunity.

In India, the Supreme Court has played a role in addressing farmers' grievances. While the Court cannot issue a direction to the Executive or the Legislature to repeal an enacted law, it can declare a law invalid if it is beyond the Legislative jurisdiction. The Court constituted a committee of experts to hear the grievances of the farmers and report back. However, the protest leaders condemned the committee as pro-government and expressed their dissatisfaction with the lack of timeline constraints.

To address the specific issue of dispute resolution, the Indian government offered to roll back a unique dispute resolution mechanism in the new farm laws. The Farmers’ Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) Act, 2020, initially provided for a special dispute resolution mechanism that barred the jurisdiction of civil courts. Instead, disputes would be handled by a government employee, the Sub-Divisional Authority (SDM), who has the power to pass orders for the recovery of amounts payable, impose penalties, or suspend/cancel the right to operate as an electronic trading platform. This change raised fears among farmers, who would prefer to have disputes handled by civil courts.

In summary, farmers in both India and the United States have faced legal challenges and expressed concerns about their rights and dispute resolution processes. While there have been efforts to address these issues, such as the proposed Farmers Bill of Rights in the United States and the Supreme Court's involvement in India, farmers continue to advocate for their rights and fair treatment under the law.

Frequently asked questions