B. The Notification Amounts To Violation of The Fundamental Right of The Farmers To Life and Livelihood

B.
The Notification amounts to violation of the fundamental right of the farmers to life
and livelihood.
It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the notification dated November 10,
2019 brought by the Central Government amounts to violation of the fundamental right of the
farmers to life and livelihood. Article 21 occupies a place of huge reverence in the
Constitution. The article mandates that no person shall be deprived of his life and personal
liberty except according to the procedure established by law. 1 India, being a signatory to the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966 compels Article 21 of the Indian
Constitution to be interpreted in conformity with international law. 2 The State has an
obligation to preserve the life and livelihood of every person. In the present case there has
been a violation of Art. 21 on the ground that [1] The Notification dated 10th November,
2019 is in violation of due process of law. [2] Sudden ban without proper planning on the
practices of Stubble Burning by Central government is violative of Article 21. [3] Prescribing
a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- on indigent farmers is unjustified and is non- proportional to a single
incident of stubble burning. [4] Scrapping of the existing benefits under Minimum support
price Scheme (MSP) is in violation of Art. 21. [5] Notification is in Antithesis to the principle
of Constitutionalism and Rule of Law.
[1] The Notification dated 10th November, 2019 is in violation of procedure established by
law.
No person can be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure
established by law (Art. 21).3 The Hon’ble court in the State of Maharashtra and Ors. vs.
Indian Hotel and Restaurants Assn. and Ors.4 In this case it was stated that the right to
livelihood is an integral part of the right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the
Constitution. The deprivation of right to livelihood can be justified if it is according to
procedure established by law under Article 21. Such a law has to be fair, just and reasonable
both substantively and procedurally.5 Article 21 protects not only every limb, but every
1
Durga Das Basu, Shorter Constitution of India 364 (14th ed, 2010)
2
People’s Union for Civil Liberties vs Union of India (1997)1SCC301 (paras. 20&26)
3
Mp jain
4
MANU/SC/0702/2013
5
Ibid
faculty through which life is enjoyed.6 So, it is obvious that the right to life enshrined in
Article 21 cannot be restricted to mere animal existence.7
The word “Law” in the expression procedure established by law in Article 21 has been
interpreted to mean in Maneka Gandhi case8 that the law must be right, just and fair, and
not arbitrary, fanciful or oppressive.9
The stubble burning in the month of October/November comprises approximately 40% of the
pollution, but for the remaining period, stubble burning is not the cause of pollution in Delhi
and NCR region.10It was noted by this Court that various other factors which were
responsible for causing pollution for example; Construction and demolition activities, Open
dumping of waste/garbage, Unpaved roads/pits, Road dust, Garbage burning, Traffic
congestion, Various hot-spots in Delhi and NCR regions were identified as noted in the
report. This Court has noted the problem of farmers in stubble burning as short gap between
two crops due to which agriculturists indulge in stubble burning.11
It was also pointed out by Mr. Sanjiv Sen, learned senior Counsel, that during odd/even
scheme in Delhi more use of two wheelers and three wheelers has taken place and they are
being plied more causing equal pollution, as such no useful purpose is being served by
stopping the use of certain vehicles only on the basis of odd and even numbers. He has also
pointed out that it would be appropriate to stop the use of diesel vehicle, in case it is
necessitated as the diesel vehicles cause more pollution as compared to petrol and CNG
vehicles.12
High level of pollution in Dilprastha and NCR region is not something new, every year this
kind of piquant situation arises for a substantial period. It is compounded by the fact that year
to year in spite of various directions issued by Supreme Court, other authorities including
6
Bijayalaxmi Tripathy and Ors.Vs. The Managing Committee of Working Women's Hostel and Ors, Maneka
Gandhi's case MANU/SC/0133/1978
7
Maenka Maneka Gandhi's case MANU/SC/0133/1978 This was so stated first by a Constitution Bench in
Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh MANU/SC/0085/1962: AIR 1989 SC 653 after referring to Munn v.
Illinois (1876) 94 US 113. In Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration MANU/SC/0184/1978: AIR 1978 SC 1675
another Constitution Bench accepted this position, Reference may also be made in this connection to some
observations of Desai, J. in Board of Trustees v. Dilip Kumar MANU/SC/0184/1982: AIR 1983 SC 109 in
paragraph 13 of which it as stated that the expression 'life' used in Article 21 has a wider connotation than
animal existence or a continued drudgery to life.
8
Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union of India 1978 AIR 597, 1978 SCR (2) 621.
9
(1976) 1 (SCC) 574-75: AIR 1978 SC 597, 622
10
MANU/SC/0032/2020 M.C. Mehta Vs.Union of India (UOI) and Ors
11
MANU/SC/0032/2020 M.C. Mehta Vs.Union of India (UOI) and Ors.
12
Ibid
Central Government, Government of NCT of Dilprastha and the corporations of Dilprastha
and nearby States are not performing their duties as enjoined upon them.
In the instant case, The notification dated 10th November, 2019 is in sheer violation of
Procedure established by law as here the alarming rate of pollution in Dilprastha is not
exclusively the result of stubble burning rather several other factors such as Traffic
congestion, Light festival, urban growth, use of diesel in place of CNG, smog in air, a seven-
fold rise in the no. of vehicles between 1990- 2019 13 are equally and even with greater
proportion is responsible to the hazardous condition of the country. Furthermore, more than
60% of the population of Purabdesh is working in the agriculture sector. 14 Which clearly
shows that agriculture is the main source of livelihood for the indigent farmers. Therefore,
notification dated 10th November, 2019 must be quashed down.
[4]. Sudden ban without proper planning on the practices of Stubble Burning by central
government is violative of article 21.
In M.C. Mehta Vs. Union of India and Ors.15 It was stated that the farmers were well
alarmed about the ban over the practices of Stubble burning as stated here, Since we are
fixing the liability on the person responsible for inaction at the village level as well as three
States in the NCR regions as well as Delhi, let the widest publicity by all means of
publication i.e. Television, Media, newspapers, Radio be made. In Gram Panchayats by beat
of drums also and other modes to ensure that villagers are made aware of their responsibility
and liability towards the other humans so that they do not involve in such acts. 16but in the
instant case
13
Moot Proposition Para 7
14
Moot Proposition Para 1
15
16

B. The Notification Amounts To Violation of The Fundamental Right of The Farmers To Life and Livelihood

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

B. The Notification Amounts To Violation of The Fundamental Right of The Farmers To Life and Livelihood

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

B. The Notification Amounts To Violation of The Fundamental Right of The Farmers To Life and Livelihood

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

B.

You might also like