Lawmaker views that Policy-making not for courts PM lays down policy rekha for judges by saying do not get into policy formulation and Foodgrains order will hit farmers, impact food security
Prime Minister on Monday suggested that Supreme Court not get into the "realm of policy formulation". He was reacting to a question on the apex court's order to distribute free grain that is rotting in the open.
The Prime Minister though added that he had not seen the final judgment of the court and that he respected the sentiments behind the decision that a way should be found to ensure useful disposal of food grains to meet needs of the people. But he said that it was not possible to distribute the grain for free.
"How can food grains be distributed free to an estimated 37 per cent of the population which lives below the poverty line," Singh said in his interaction with editors at his 7 Race Course Road residence.
"I do recognise that food should be available to the people below poverty line at concessional prices. We have not allowed any increase in the issue price of food grains to people below poverty line since 2004," he said.
"At the same time making food available free would destroy incentives to farmers to produce more. If there was no food available, there would be nothing to distribute."
Singh also asserted that government had taken adequate steps, to the extent possible, in useful disbursal while noting the apex court's concern of food made available to the poor at affordable price
At the same time making food available free would destroy incentives to farmers to produce more. If there was no food available there would be nothing to distribute, he said.
Singhvi congress spokesman denied that this was a rebuff to the Supreme Court. "I totally deny that prime minister has rebuffed the Supreme Court. Those in the opposition, who are trying to sensationalise it as a rebuff to the SC, do not know how the judiciary and the executive function," Singhvi said.
The congress party spokesperson added that there was no order from the apex court to start free distribution of rotting food grains.
"The Supreme Court has given no direction, order or judgment. There is no order. If there is an order we are violating, please go and file a contempt we will face it," Singhvi said.
"I am amazed... Prime Minister talks about policy. I would most humbly inform him that the Supreme Court has the right to interpret Right to Life as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court has not talked about the policy," BJP chief spokesperson Ravishankar Prasad told reporters here.
"If the government cannot distribute foodgrains then why are they talking about a food security bill. As for how to distribute the foodgrains, they can learn from the Chhattisgarh government. The rations are distributed on the seventh of every month and MLAs and public servants ensure it is done smoothly and fairly," Swaraj said.
The food security should be extended to APL families also, she added.
The Union Food Ministry today told the Supreme Court that its suggestion on limiting food procurement to available storage facilities, if put to action, would hit the poor farmer and “drastically impact food security of the nation”.
In a 19-page affidavit, C Vishwanath, joint secretary in the Ministry, said: “If Food Corporation of India (FCI) and state government agencies that do the work of procurement were to limit procurement only to the extent of their storage capacities, it would mean that in years of peak procurements, when markets are not very favourable, many farmers may not be able to sell their produce... and... would be left... at the mercy of traders who may not pay adequate prices.”
The government said this would force it to go back on the assurance to farmers that “whatever quantities of foodgrains they wish to sell to the government at minimum support prices would be purchased by the FCI and the state agencies” provided quality specifications are met.
On the day when Prime Minister Manmohan Singh reminded the Supreme Court to stay within its Lakshman rekha on policy matters, the apex court retracted its order over supplying free grain to the poor and endorsed the UPA Government’s decision to set apart additional 25 lakh tonne foodgrains for BPL families over six months.
The Bench of Justices Dalveer Bhandari and Deepak Verma found the fresh affidavit filed by the Centre “very comprehensive” though the Centre summarily rejected all the proposals laid out by the court in its previous order of August 31.
Making it clear that it wished to avoid any confrontation with the Government, the judges welcomed the Centre’s move to allocate an additional 25 lakh tonne wheat/rice at BPL prices over and above the sanctioned 469.7 lakh tonne foodgrains allocated under the public distribution system (PDS).
Welcoming this short-term measure aimed for distribution across six months, the Bench said, “This decision of the Union of India would go a long way in providing the much-needed relief to the BPL population.”
On the previous date of hearing, the Bench had frowned at the Food and Public Distribution Ministry officials for treating its direction on “providing free foodgrains to the poor and needy” as a mere suggestion.
Taking a swipe instead on the media, the Bench remarked, “It was not an order but only a suggestion. We hope our orders are read next time before the media reports them.”
On the most crucial aspect of procurement of foodgrains where the court was critical of the grains being allowed to rot instead of it going to the poor and suggestion to the Centre for procuring as much grain as could be stored, the Centre’s affidavit rejected the proposal.
It said that any move to limit procurement would hurt the Centre’s policy to give “attractive price to farmers” and discourage them from growing more foodgrain. Moreover, the affidavit filed by Joint Secretary C Vishwanath stated in clear terms that the apex court’s suggestion would leave the farmers at the mercy of traders who do not pay remunerative prices, leading to change in the cropping pattern.
Admitting there was wastage of foodgrains at the godowns, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Mohan Parasaran clarified, “There is no confrontation with the (Supreme) Court.” However, he went on to say the wastage of grain was “usual”. The Centre was even non-committal on conducting a fresh survey of the APL and BPL beneficiaries, suggesting it was the task of State Governments and that the Planning Commission had instructed the States to conduct the survey.
But even with such staunch rejection of its suggestions, the Bench welcomed the Centre’s stand and said, “We are very happy with the developments.” On the court’s suggestion for scrapping the APL-category beneficiaries to spare grain for the BPL and Antyodaya Anna Yojana, the Centre was again not agreeable. It reiterated its stand that APL beneficiaries would only be fed after the BPL and AAY beneficiaries were catered to.
However, a ray of light which the Bench saw in the affidavit was the mention of work being done on framing a Food Security Act, with the matter being actively considered by the National Advisory Council (NAC) headed by UPA chairperson Sonia Gandhi. The Bench expressed satisfaction over its concerns being met. For the petitioner NGO PUCL, senior advocate Colin Gonsalves sought time to file response as the Bench posted the matter for September 24.
In another case of over loading of trucks facing contempt of court proceedings against the Chief Secretaries of States across the country on Monday by the Supreme Court proceedings was canceled..In 2005 the then bench headed by Justice Arijit Pasayat had directed all state governments that they issued orders to prevent over loading and proceedings under the Motor Vehicle Act Owner Truck Association in 2007 in the Supreme Court filed contempt petition alleged that the state governments are not following court orders.
On another issue of enemy property lawmaker said that Only govt, not courts, can decide enemy property ownership. A new ordinance on enemy property, to replace the one that lapsed Sunday midnight, blocks the power of courts to decide the owner of assets of those who moved to Pakistan and makes the government the sole arbitrator. “No court shall have jurisdiction to order divestment from the Custodian of enemy property vested in him under this Act or direct the central government to divest such property from the Custodian.” The courts’ purview would be limited to only “adjudicate whether the property... is an enemy property or not”.
Home Minister Chidambaram has approved a new Section 18 that allows divestment of property from the Custodian — which the Enemy Property (Amendment and Validation) Bill did not — to the owner or lawful heir provided the claimant furnishes a “succession certificate or a declaration” from a competent court
No comments:
Post a Comment