Agricultural Law: Evaluation on basis of
the Constitution of
By Arindam Datta
B.A.LL.B., Department of Law,
It’s an evident fact that the
poor in
About two-thirds of the country’s labour force consists of cultivators and agricultural labourers. As per the 32nd and the 48 the Rounds of the national Sample Survey (NSS), 51.2 and 40.4 per cent of the rural population were below poverty line 1977/78 and 1983/84, respectively.1 Rural poverty is concentrated largely in backward, drought-prone and flood-prone areas. Per capita income in the rural sector is still much lower than in the urban sector, and the absolute number of poor households in rural areas has increased over the past few decades. NSS data reveal a marked disparity in the distribution of land in the rural areas. Over 60 per cent of the land holdings in rural India as a whole consisted of small holdings below one hectare in area, the proportion being much larger in states like west Bengal and Kerala, where the man-land ratios are very high.2 According to the Agricultural Census (1980-81), 50.5 millions ( that is about 56.5 percent) of a total of 89.4 million holdings measured up to one hectare. About 16.1 million farms were between one and two hectares in size. Together, they made for 66.6 million farms or approximately 74.4 per cent of all the farms in India, but accounted for hardly 26 per cent of the cultivated acreage.3 These small and marginal4 rural household had a total of 373 million people.5 This, together with the other socio-economic group of agricultural labourers, represented the hard core of the rural poor and those who were on the lowest rung of the ladder.6
Rural development which begins with agricultural development, involves both economic and social transformation. It means improving the living standards and the quality of life of the rural poor, as well as making the process of their development self-sustaining. The growing rural-urban divide, reflected in disparities of per capita income and living standards, must be bridged in order to achieve the above.7 Unfortunately, even in the final decade of the twentieth century, the urban class controls the state which is the embodiment of powerful interests, especially the interests of the city. By and large it’s the urban interests and goals that determine the development policies, which are aimed at protecting and enhancing urban-based industrial and economic activities and services; village based industrialization and other aspects of rural development, like health and education have been relatively neglected. The urban bias was staunchly opposed by nationalist stalwarts like Tagore and Mahatma Gandhi.8 In fact, four decades of planned development in India have mostly hinged on he development of large-scale industries and the urban sector, while the problems of poverty and unemployment which plagued the country at the time of independence remain rampant.9 There is no denying that without ensuring significant progress in the languishing agriculture-rural sector, not much success can be achieved in solving these problems.
Secondly, in agrarian economies, equity and efficiency considerations cannot
be divorced from each other. Recent literature has considered the effect of
existing or growing inequality in wealth distribution on technological change
and productivity. Concerns has been expressed that the existing archaic
structure of rural society and the growing interpersonal inequality within less
developed countries (LDC) like India have impeded the adoption of certain
innovations. Agricultural and rural development in
The paper deals with whether there is a constitutional obligation upon the
state to ensure that the mandate under Article 21 of Constitution of India is
met in matters pertaining to Agricultural Law and if not then what could be the
course of action against such erring states. In order to do so we have to
evaluate Jurisprudential growth of Article 21 vis-à-vis Constitutional Rights
of poor farmers in rural
The Nature and Scope of Article 21—An Overview
Like in the constitutions of other democratic countries, the Constitution of
India contains a catalogue of fundamental rights. These rights together form
the boundaries of
“No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.”
Article 21, though couched in negative language confers on every person the fundamental right to life and personal liberty.13 This right which is one of the most fundamental of all rights is also the most difficult to define. A reference with respect to its import can be seen from the corresponding provision in the 5th and 14th amendment of the U.S Constitution, which says that no person shall be deprived of his “life, liberty or property without due process of law”, in Munn v Illinois14, Field, J. spoke of the right to life in the following words:
“By the term ‘life’ as here used something more is meant than mere animal existence. The inhibition against its deprivation extends to all those limbs and faculties by which life is enjoyed. The provision equally prohibits the mutilation of the body by amputation of an arm or leg, or the putting out of an eye, or the destruction of any other organ of the body through which the soul communicates with outer world.”
This statement, which has been repeatedly quoted with approval by our Supreme Court, has been further expanded in Francis Coralie v Union Territory of Delhi15 by the statement “that any act which damages or injures or interferes with the use of any limb or faculty of a person, either permanently or even temporarily, would be within the inhibition of Article 21”. In the same case Bhagwati, J. held:
“We think that the right to life includes the right to live with human dignity and all that goes along with it, namely, the bare necessaries of life such as adequate nutrition, clothing and shelter over the head and facilities for reading, writing and expressing oneself in diverse forms, freely moving about and mixing and commingle with fellow human beings.”
The judge conceded that “the magnitude and content of the components of this right would depend upon the extent of the economic development of the country”, but emphasized that “it must, in any view of the matter, include the right to the basic necessities of life and also the right to carry on such functions and activities as constitute the bare minimum expression of the “human self”. In the recent years this article has taken an unprecedented activist role which includes rights like right to healthy environment,16 right to livelihood17, a right to live with human dignity free from exploitation18, right to health19 etc.
Rights available to poor farmers as the law stands now
I.
The right to food (An Important Aspect of Food
Security) is not just a basic human right but also a basic human need. It
essentially requires the state to ensure at least that the people do not
starve. States have to take all necessary steps towards fulfilling the right to
adequate food. Under the Indian Constitution, there is no fundamental right to
food but the fulcrum of justifiability of the right to food comes from a much
broader "right to life and liberty" as enshrined in Article 21. In
fact, the basis of the much talked about petition filed by the People's
The principal constraint in realizing the right to adequate food is economic accessibility or affordability. This brings to the fore two main issues: (1) the price of the food grains and (2) the economic means to exercise `command' over the food. The relief or ad hoc employment provided to farmers during the lean season or to landless labourers and tribal for a short duration does not bring enough money — to feed themselves or their families adequately. Another important issue is the interface between the right to food and the right to health on the notion of `adequacy'. According to Asjborn Eide, U.N. Special Rapporteur on Right to Food, once foodstuffs are physically available, they have to satisfy the dietary needs (energy and nutrients) to qualify as adequate. The alarming nutritional status of poor farmers is primarily attributed to chronic hunger. To do away with this chronic under-nourishment, adequate food with all dietary elements is not enough. Adequate food must be accompanied by a provision for adequate health care. Under the Indian Constitution within the ambit of the aforementioned article right to health is also envisaged as an integral part of right to life.20
An assessment of the initiatives of the Centre and the State Governments to
satisfy the right to adequate food and right to health after the Supreme
Court's interim order makes it clear that the state has failed in various ways
to protect, facilitate and provide adequate food. The food security schemes
specified in the interim order are not functioning in many States. The
starvation deaths in Orissa's Kashipur
village bear testimony to a clear lack of political will and seriousness on the
part of the States along with corrupt local governments and the bureaucracy. An
important instrument in asserting the right to adequate food is legal action.
Of late, the Supreme Court has started entertaining Public Interest Litigation
highlighting questions of public importance. The PIL filed by the PUCL
against the
II.
Another important issue cropping up recently is the right
to education (An important part of Rural Development) debate. In Unni Krishnan v State of
III. Another aspect to the above right is Enjoyment of life (…) including [the right to live] with human dignity encompasses within its ambit, the protection and preservation of environment,(An Important Aspect of Agriculture Development) ecological balance free from pollution of air and water, sanitation, without which life cannot be enjoyed. Any contra acts or actions would cause environmental pollution. Environmental, ecological, air, water pollution, etc. should be regarded as amounting to violation of Article 21. Therefore, hygienic environment is an integral facet of right to a healthy life and it would be impossible to live with human dignity without a human and healthy environment”. Form this facet emanates gamut of rights which include right to clean water for agriculture. A typical situation has arisen where the farmers in most places are forced to use sewage water and the untreated water from the factories. Even the ground water is polluted and unsafe for use. The above is causing serious ailment amongst farmers as well as jeopardizing the success of crops. Therefore this right is a new addition to the farmer’s basic right to live with human dignity.
IV.
One of the most powerful additions to the nature of
right envisaged under Article 21 is the right to livelihood.
Initially, for some time the Court held the view that right to life in Article
21 does not include right to livelihood.22 After some controversy on
that issue23 the Court has clearly held that right to livelihood is
included in the right to life “because no person can live without the means
of living, that is, the means of livelihood”. In the celebrated decision of
Olga Tellis v
“It is the fundamental right of everyone in this country… to live with human dignity, free from exploitation. The right to live with human dignity enshrined in Article 21 derives its life breath from the Directive Principles of State Policy and particularly clauses (e) and (f) of Article 39 and Article 41 and 42 and at least, therefore, it must include protection of the health and strength of the workers men and women, and of the tender age of children against abuse, opportunities and facilities for children to develop in a healthy manner and in conditions of freedom and dignity, educational facilities, just and humane conditions of work and maternity relief. These are minimum requirements which must exist in order to enable a person to live with human dignity and no State… has the right to take any action which will deprive a person of the enjoyment of this basic essentials.29”
The above quote signifies an individual’s right against exploitation. Thus any farmer who is being exploited because of his inability to pay back the loan or for any other reason shall have an action against the State to ensure that his basic fundamental right to live with human dignity which includes a life free from exploitation is preserved.
Moreover, there should be due recognition of the fact that all pivotal rights such as the right to food, right to health, right to education or any economic and social rights, for that matter, are interdependent and have important bearing in the life of poor farmers. For example, providing sufficient food to do away with under-nutrition will not really eliminate the chronic health disorders that have already set in. Providing adequate health care is necessary which gives way to a natural corollary that every individual must have a clean and healthy environment. Similarly, to realize the right to food or health people should have access to education and information. Finally, the above rights would be meaningless if the person does not have life free from exploitation. Therefore it can be concluded that each right is complementary and supplementary to other rights. For a successful enjoyment of the right under Article 21 it’s essential the essence of Article 21 is protect which is a confluence to all such rights already talked about.
In order to evaluate the root of the
problems, evaluation of deficiency in Rural Development Programme
must be done.
Genesis of the Problem of Rural Development
There are three aspects of Rural Development; first relates to the tenancy reforms and abolition of intermediaries through which changes in the system of land-holdings were brought; the second relates to the ceiling on the land-holdings, consolidation of holdings, cooperative farming and distribution of land for cultivation to the new tellers on the land; and the third relates to the removal of elements of exploitation and social injustice in the agrarian system so as to create conditions for the social justice to agriculture labour. Land to tiller is a cardinal feature of the land policy. Land reforms have attempted to abolish forced labour through the Constitutional Mandate.30
Though a pioneering work has been done with respect to land distribution there is serious lacunae in agricultural labour reforms and rural credit system. Agriculture credit is manifested as a key instrument of economic policy in most market-oriented developing countries. Credit is used as a catalyst and stimulant for the speedy development of a nation in general and agriculture in particular. Unfortunately, results of conventional agricultural credit programme have seldom measured up to expectations. Their effects have generally been overestimated by evaluation that ignores the way rural financial markets work. A rural financial market (RFM) consists of relationships between buyers and sellers of financial assets who are active in rural economics. These relationships are based on transactions that include borrowing, lending and transfers of ownership assets. Financial assets consist of debt claims and ownership claims. Debt claims are promises to pay. Example include verbal promises or scraps of paper signed by a thumb-point, as well as more formal evidence of indebtedness by individuals and deposit accounts that are debt claims on banks. RFMs include informal sector intermediaries, formal institutions and private borrowing and lending not involving intermediaries.31
The All India Rural Credit Survey 1951 and All India Debt and Investment Surveys and the CRAFICARD 1981 have been the pioneering studies undertaken by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI). The All India Rural Credit Survey (AIRCS) was the most comprehensive, scientific undertaking. The findings of the Committee confirmed the dominant position occupied by the moneylender in the Rural Credit Market. It observed that agricultural credit fell short of the right quantity, was not of the right type, did not serve the right purpose and often failed to go to the right people.
The other problem is with respect to
agriculture labour which does not find place in the
Land Reforms made during the last 50 years of independence. All the major land
reforms made in various States related to the abolition of intermediary system,
consolidation of holdings, settlement operations, conferment of tenancy rights
and sub-tenants and fixation of ceiling on the holdings. Tenant was the pivot
of all these land reforms. Unfortunately, the agricultural labour,
who had played an important role in the agricultural production process, still
occupies the lowest rung in the socio-economic ladder of the rural population.
Our Constitution envisages that justice, social, and economic should be given
to all the persons. Agricultural labour occupies the
lowest place in the socio-economic structure of the land set up. Mostly, these
problems belong to the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes or backward
classes. They have no resource base and are mostly landless. During the last 50
years of independence there has been a tremendous rise in the total number of
agricultural laborers in
The Apathy of the Farmers – An Interface with Reality:-As already
stated rural population in
Analysts state the spate of suicides is rooted in the endemic neglect of the
farming sector in the state. Thus its evident that
there is a general ignorance on the part of the State’s towards agricultural
sector. This calls for another debate, whether there is a constitutional
mandate upon the State to ensure that rights of poor farmer’s are protected so
that they do not commit suicide. Right to life envisaged under Article 21 as
already mentioned in the previous chapter is an integral part of the
Constitution. All other rights can be successfully enjoyed if the instant right
can be meaningfully exercised. As already discussed the ambit of this right has
been tremendously increased and right to life includes life with human dignity.
In light of this background it is understandable that ‘preservation of life’ is
the most important facet of this article, cause all other expanded notions of
rights envisaged under this article becomes meaningless in the absence of
‘life’ itself. Moreover, though Article 21 is negatively worded but it’s a
settled principle of law that there is also a positive element to it. Thus the
State not only has to ensure that ‘no person is deprived of his life with
human dignity’ but also has to ensure through an affirmative action that
every subject is enjoying a life with human dignity. Therefore, from the
above two premises it can be safely concluded that there is a constitutional
mandate (emanating from Article 21) upon the States to ensure preservation of
meaningful life of it’s subjects. A concomitant
argument that arises from the above discussion is what shall be the consequence
if the aforementioned mandate is violated or not fulfilled by the State. An
analogy can be drawn from the celebrated case of S.R. Bommai
v
The test of the success or failure of the Constitution is its ability to
fulfill what it promises: justice, social, economic and political; liberty of
thought, expression, belief, faith and worship; equality of status and
opportunity and fraternity assuring the dignity of the individual. In creating
the three organs of government—the legislature, the executive and the
judiciary—the Constitution assigned a specific role to each, but the assumption
was that each would strive towards the common goal set out in the Preamble.
Among the three organs judiciary was bestowed upon the pristine task to ensure
compliance of these organs with the provisions of paramount law of the land. It
is settled that it is for the Legislature to frame the right laws and it is for
the Executive both to formulate and execute policies, but the Constitution has made
the judiciary the sole interpreter of the Constitution,
and, to that extent, it sets the tone. There appears to be a general agreement
that in recent years the Supreme Court has brought about more for-reaching
changes than legislature and executive combined. Except in
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Primary Document
List of Cases
1. Bandhua Mukti Morcha v
2. Begulla Bapi Raju v State of
3. Dalmia Cement (Bharat)
Ltd. v
4. Delhi
Transport Corporation v D.T.C.Mazdoor Congress
1999 Supp (1) SCC 600,
5. Development,
Horticulture Employee’s Union v
6. Francis
Coralie v
7. Munn v Illinois 94 U.S. 113
8. Nagendra Kumar v State of
9. Olga Tellis v Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985) 3 SCC 545
10. State
of
11. Unni Krishnan v State of
12.
13. Vikaram Deo Singh Tomar v State of Bihar 1998 Supp SCC 734
Secondary Document
Books
B.N.Yugandhar and P.S.Datta,
Land Reforms in
C.V.Joshi, Agrarian Structures & Tenancy
Movements, Rawat Publications,
G.S.Bhalla and Gurmail
Singh, Indian Agriculture Four Decades of Development, Sage
Publications,
H.C.L Merillat, Land and Constitution in India,
N.M.Tripathi Pvt Ltd,
Heni Streefkerk and T.K.Moulik, Managing Rural Development, Sage
Publications,
Peter.P.Mallinga, Water for Food and Rural
Development, Sage Publications,
S.R.Bhansali, Land Reforms and Agricultural Labour in
Sandeep Joshi, IRDP and Poverty Alleviation,
Rawat Publications,
Seervai H.M., Constitutional Law of
Shukla V.N., Constitution of
Usha Jha, Land, Labour and Power, Aakar
Book,
Vandana Shiva and Gitanjali
Bedi, Sustainable Agriculture and Food Security The Impact of Globalisation,
Sage Publications,