Comparison of the 2020 central farm laws with the amendments proposed by states

Prachi Kaur , Suyash Tiwari - December 7, 2020

A few weeks ago, in response to the initial protests by farmers against the new central farm laws, three state assemblies – Chhattisgarh, Punjab, and Rajasthan – passed Bills to address farmers’ concerns. While these Bills await the respective Governors’ assent, protests against the central farm laws have gained momentum. In this blog, we discuss the key amendments proposed by these states in response to the central farm laws.

What are the central farm laws and what do they seek to do?

In September 2020, Parliament enacted three laws: (i) the Farmers’ Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) Act, 2020, (ii) the Farmers (Empowerment and Protection) Agreement on Price Assurance and Farm Services Act, 2020, and (iii) the Essential Commodities (Amendment) Act, 2020. The laws collectively seek to: (i) facilitate barrier-free trade of farmers’ produce outside the markets notified under the various state Agriculture Produce Marketing Committee (APMC) laws, (ii) define a framework for contract farming, and (iii) regulate the supply of certain food items, including cereals, pulses, potatoes, and onions, only under extraordinary circumstances such as war, famine, and extraordinary price rise.

How do the central farm laws change the agricultural regulatory framework?

Agricultural marketing in most states is regulated by the Agricultural Produce Marketing Committees (APMCs), set up under the state APMC Act. The central farm laws seek to facilitate multiple channels of marketing outside the existing APMC markets. Many of these existing markets face issues such as limited number of buyers restricting the entry of new players and undue deductions in the form of commission charges and market fees. The central laws introduced a liberalised agricultural marketing system with the aim of increasing the availability of buyers for farmers’ produce. More buyers would lead to competition in the agriculture market resulting in better prices for farmers.

Why have states proposed amendments to the central farm laws?

The central farm laws allow anyone with a PAN card to buy farmers’ produce in the ‘trade area’ outside the markets notified or run by the APMCs. Buyers do not need to get a license from the state government or APMC, or pay any tax to them for such purchase in the ‘trade area’. These changes in regulations raised concerns regarding the kind of protections available to farmers in the ‘trade area’ outside APMC markets, particularly in terms of the price discovery and payment. To address such concerns, the states of Chhattisgarh, Punjab, and Rajasthan, in varying forms, proposed amendments to the existing agricultural marketing laws.

The Punjab and Rajasthan assemblies passed Bills to amend the central Acts, in their application to these states. The Chhattisgarh Assembly passed a Bill to amend its APMC Act in response to the central Acts. These state Bills aim to prevent exploitation of farmers and ensure an optimum guarantee of fair market price for the agriculture produce. Among other things, these state Bills enable state governments to levy market fee outside the physical premises of the state APMC markets, mandate MSP for certain types of agricultural trade, and enable state governments to regulate the production, supply, and distribution of essential commodities and impose stock limits under extraordinary circumstances.

Chhattisgarh

The Farmers’ Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) Act, 2020 allows anyone with a PAN card to buy farmers’ produce in the trade area outside the markets notified or run by the APMCs. Buyers do not need to get a license from the state government or APMC, or pay any tax to them for such purchase in the trade area. The Chhattisgarh Assembly passed a Bill to amend its APMC Act to allow the state government to notify structures outside APMC markets, such as godowns, cold storages, and e-trading platforms, as deemed markets. This implies that such deemed markets will be under the jurisdiction of the APMCs as per the central Act. Thus, APMCs in Chhattisgarh can levy market fee on sale of farmers’ produce in such deemed markets (outside the APMC markets) and require the buyer to have a license.

Punjab and Rajasthan

The Punjab and Rajasthan Bills empower the respective state governments to levy a market fee (on private traders, and electronic trading platforms) for trade outside the state APMC markets. Further, they mandate that in certain cases, agricultural produce should not be sold or purchased at a price below the Minimum Support Price (MSP). For instance, in Punjab sale and purchase of wheat and paddy should not be below MSP. The Bills also provide that they will override any other law currently in force. Table 1 gives a comparison of the amendments proposed by states with the related provisions of the central farm laws.

Table 1: Comparison of the central farm laws with amendments proposed by Punjab and Rajasthan

Provision	Central laws	State amendments
Market fee	The central Acts prohibit the state governments and APMCs from levying any market fee, cess, or any other charge on the trade of farmers’ produce outside the market yards notified or run by APMCs.	The state Bills empower the state government to levy a fee (on private traders and electronic trading platforms) for trade outside the markets established or notified under the respective state APMC Acts. Such fees collected will be utilised for the welfare of small and marginal farmers in case of Punjab, and for running of the APMCs and welfare of farmers in case of Rajasthan.
Minimum Support Price (MSP) - fixed by the central government, based on the recommendations of the Commission for Agricultural Costs and Prices	The central Acts do not provide for the MSP. They do provide for a contractual agreement for buyers and farmers to enter into prior to the production or rearing of any farm produce. This agreement must specify a minimum guaranteed price that the buyer will pay to the farmer for the sale.	The Punjab Bill provides that sale or purchase of wheat or paddy in state should be at prices equal to or above the MSP. The Rajasthan Bill provides that the pre-determined prices for all crop under farming agreements should be at prices equal to or above the MSP.
Penalties for compeling farmers to sell below MSP	Not prescribed.	In Punjab, if any buyer compels a farmer to sell wheat or paddy at a price below MSP, he will be penalised with an imprisonment term of at least three years and a fine. In Rajsthan, if a buyer compels a farmer to enter into a farming agreement below MSP, it will attract imprisonment between three and seven years, or a fine up to five lakh rupees, or both.
Delivery under farming agreements	The central Acts provide that the delivery of the produce can be: (i) taken by buyers at farm gate within the agreed time, or (ii) made by the farmer, in which case the buyer will be responsible for preparations for timely acceptance of the delivery. The buyer may inspect the quality of the produce as defined in the agreement.	In Rajasthan, if a buyer refuses to accept agricultural produce or take delivery of goods within a week from date of intimation by the farmer, he will attract imprisonment between three and seven years, or a fine of up to five lakh rupees, or both.
Regulation of essential commodities	The Essential Commodities Act, 1955 empowers the central government to regulate the production, supply, distribution, storage, and trade of essential commodities, such as medicines, fertilisers, and foodstuff. The Essential Commodities (Amendment) Act, 2020 empowers the central government to regulate the supply of certain food items, including cereals, pulses, potato, and onions, only under extraordinary circumstances such as war, famine, extraordinary price rise, and natural calamity of grave nature.	The state Bills provide that the respective state government will also have the powers to: (i) regulate the production, supply, and distribution of essential commodities, and (ii) impose stock limits under extraordinary circumstances. Such circumstances may include: (i) famine, (ii) price rise, (iii) natural calamity, or (iv) any other situation.
Imposition of stock limit	The Farmers (Empowerment and Protection) Agreement on Price Assurance and Farm Services Act, 2020 provides that any stock limit will not apply to the farming produce sold under a farming agreement.	The Rajasthan Bill amending the central Act empowers the state government to impose stock limits, under certain conditions, on any farm produce sold under a farming agreement. These conditions are: (i) if there is a shortage of such farm produce in the state, or (ii) if there is a 25% increase in prices of such produce beyond the maximum price which was prevailing in the market (within two years before passing of such an order by the state government).
Dispute Resolution Mechanism for Farmers	The central Acts provide that at first, all disputes must be referred to a Conciliation Board for resolution. If the dispute remains unresolved by the Board after 30 days, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM) may be approached for resolution. Further, parties can appeal to an Appellate Authority (presided by collector or additional collector) against decisions of the SDM. Both SDM and Appellate Authority will be required to dispose a dispute within 30 days from the receipt of application.	Instead of the dispute resolution mechanism specified under the central Acts, the Rajasthan Bill provides that disputes will be resolved by APMCs, as per the provisions of the state APMC Act.
Power of civil courts	The central Acts prohibit civil courts from adjudicating over disputes under the Acts.	The Punjab Bill allows farmers to approach civil courts or avail other remedies under existing laws, in addition to those available under the central Acts. The Rajasthan Bill provides that the jurisdiction of civil courts over disputes will be as per the state APMC Act and rules under it. Currently, the state APMC Act prohibits civil courts from adjudicating over disputes related to trade allowance and contract farming agreements under the Act.
Special provisions	-	The Bills provide that the state APMC Act will continue to apply in the respective states, as they did prior to enactment of the central Acts (i.e. June 4, 2020). Further, all notices issued by the central government or any authority under the central Acts will be suspended. No punitive action will be taken for any violation of the provisions of the central Acts.

Note: A market committee provides facilities for and regulates the marketing of agricultural produce in a designated market area.

Have the state amendments come into force?

The amendments proposed by states aim to address the concerns of farmers, but to a varying extent. The Bills have not come into force yet as they await the Governors’ assent. In addition, the Punjab and Rajasthan Bills also need the assent of the President, as they are inconsistent with the central Acts and seek to amend them. Meanwhile, amidst the ongoing protests, many farmers’ organisations are in talks with the central government to seek redressal of their grievances and appropriate changes in the central farm laws. It remains to be seen to what extent will such changes address the concerns of farmers.

A version of this article first appeared on Firstpost on December 5, 2020.

Parliament

Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act: Review of implementation

Joyita - September 23, 2013

In the recently concluded Monsoon Session of Parliament , the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Rural Development released a report on the implementation of the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Development Act, 2005 (MGNREGA). This blog provides a brief introduction to the key provisions of MGNREGA , followed by an overview of the major findings and recommendations of the Standing Committee.

I. MGNREGA: A brief introduction

A. Objectives: MGNREGA, which is the largest work guarantee programme in the world, was enacted in 2005 with the primary objective of guaranteeing 100 days of wage employment per year to rural households. Secondly, it aims at addressing causes of chronic poverty through the 'works' (projects) that are undertaken, and thus ensuring sustainable development. Finally, there is an emphasis on strengthening the process of decentralisation through giving a significant role to Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRIs) in planning and implementing these works.

B. Key features:

Legal right to work: Unlike earlier employment guarantee schemes, the Act provides a legal right to employment for adult members of rural households. At least one third beneficiaries have to be women. Wages must be paid according to the wages specified for agricultural labourers in the state under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, unless the central government notifies a wage rate (this should not be less than Rs 60 per day). At present, wage rates are determined by the central government but vary across states, ranging from Rs 135 per day to Rs 214 per day.
Time bound guarantee of work and unemployment allowance: Employment must be provided with 15 days of being demanded failing which an ‘unemployment allowance’ must be given.
Decentralised planning: Gram sabhas must recommend the works that are to be undertaken and at least 50% of the works must be executed by them. PRIs are primarily responsible for planning, implementation and monitoring of the works that are undertaken.
Work site facilities: All work sites should have facilities such as crèches, drinking water and first aid.
Transparency and accountability: There are provisions for proactive disclosure through wall writings, citizen information boards, Management Information Systems and social audits. Social audits are conducted by gram sabhas to enable the community to monitor the implementation of the scheme.
Funding: Funding is shared between the centre and the states. There are three major items of expenditure – wages (for unskilled, semi-skilled and skilled labour), material and administrative costs. The central government bears 100% of the cost of unskilled labour, 75% of the cost of semi-skilled and skilled labour, 75% of the cost of materials and 6% of the administrative costs.

MGNREGA was implemented in phases, starting from February 2006, and at present it covers all districts of the country with the exception of those that have a 100% urban population. The Act provides a list of works that can be undertaken to generate employment related to water conservation, drought proofing, land development, and flood control and protection works. Table 1 provides information regarding employment generation and expenditure under MGNREGA.

Table 1: MGNREGA: Key indicators

Year	Number of households provided employment (in crore)	Average number of person days of work per household	Total Expenditure (in lakh)
2006-07	2.10	43	8823.35
2007-08	3.39	42	15856.88
2008-09	4.51	48	27250.10
2009-10	5.25	54	37905.23
2010-11	5.49	47	39377.27
2011-12*	4.99	43	38034.69
2012-13**	4.25	36	28073.51

Source: Standing Committee on Rural Development; PRS. Note: *Provisional ** As on 31.01.2013

II. Findings and Recommendations of the Standing Committee on Rural Development

A. Achievements: The Standing Committee highlighted several achievements of MGNREGA in the seven years of its implementation, especially:

Ensuring livelihood for people in rural areas.
Large scale participation of women, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (SCs/STs) and other traditionally marginalised sections of society. SCs/STs account for 51% of the total person-days generated and women account for 47% of the total person-days generated.
Increasing the wage rate in rural areas and strengthening the rural economy through the creation of infrastructure assets.
Facilitating sustainable development, and
Strengthening PRIs by involving them in the planning and monitoring of the scheme.

B. Challenges: However, the Committee found several issues with the implementation of the scheme. As Table 1 (above) shows, the average number of days of employment provided to households has been lower than the mandated 100 days, and has been decreasing since 2010-11. Key issues that the Committee raised include

Fabrication of job cards: While as many as 12.5 crore households have been issued job cards out of an estimated 13.8 crore rural households ( as per the 2001 census), there are several issues related to existence of fake job cards, inclusion of fictitious names, missing entries and delays in making entries in job cards.
Delay in payment of wages: Most states have failed to disburse wages within 15 days as mandated by MGNREGA. In addition, workers are not compensated for a delay in payment of wages.
Non payment of unemployment allowances: Most states do not pay an unemployment allowance when work is not given on demand. The non-issuance of dated receipts of demanded work prevents workers from claiming an unemployment allowance.
Large number of incomplete works: There has been a delay in the completion of works under MGNREGA and inspection of projects has been irregular. Implementing agencies were able to complete only 98 lakh works out of 296 lakh works. As Table 2 shows, a large percentage of works remain incomplete under MGNREGA and the work completion rate appears to be decreasing in recent years.

Table 2: Work completion rate

Year	Work completion rate (%)
2006-07	46.34
2007-08	45.99
2008-09	43.76
2009-10	48.94
2010-11	50.86
2011-12*	20.25
2012-13*	15.02
Total	33.22

Source: Standing Committee on Rural Development. Note: * As on 30.01.2013

Other key challenges include poor quality of assets created, several instances of corruption in the implementation of MGNREGA, and insufficient involvement of PRIs.

C. Recommendations: The Committee made the following recommendations, based on its findings:

Regulation of job cards: Offences such as not recording employment related information in job cards and unlawful possession of job cards with elected PRI representatives and MGNREGA functionaries should be made punishable under the Act.
Participation of women: Since the income of female workers typically raises the standard of living of their households to a greater extent than their male counterparts, the participation of women must be increased through raising awareness about MGNREGA.
Participation of people with disabilities: Special works (projects) must be identified for people with disabilities; and special job cards must be issued and personnel must be employed to ensure their participation.
Utilisation of funds: The Committee found that a large amount of funds allocated for MGNREGA have remained unutilised. For example, in 2010-11, 27.31% of the funds remained unutilised. The Committee recommends that the Department of Rural Development should analyse reasons for poor utilisation of funds and take steps to improve the same. In addition, it should initiate action against officers found guilty of misappropriating funds under MGNREGA.
Context specific projects and convergence: Since states are at various stages of socio-economic development, they have varied requirements for development. Therefore, state governments should be allowed to undertake works that are pertinent to their context. There should be more emphasis on skilled and semi-skilled work under MGNREGA. In addition, the Committee recommends a greater emphasis on convergence with other schemes such as the National Rural Livelihoods Mission, National Rural Health Mission, etc.
Payment of unemployment allowance: Dated receipts for demanded work should be issued so that workers can claim unemployment allowance. Funds for unemployment allowance should be met by the central government.
Regular monitoring: National Level Monitors (NLMs) are deployed by the Ministry of Rural Development for regular and special monitoring of MGNREGA and to enquire into complaints regarding mis-utilisation of funds, etc. The Committee recommends that the frequency of monitoring by NLMs should increase and appropriate measures should be taken by states based on their recommendations. Additionally, social audits must mandatorily be held every six months. The Committee observes that the performance of MGNREGA is better in states with effective social audit mechanisms.
Training of functionaries: Training and capacity building of elected representatives and other functionaries of PRIs must be done regularly as it will facilitate their involvement in the implementation of MGNREGA.

Home

MPs & MLAs

Legislatures

Parliament

State

Bills & Acts

Budgets

Policy

LAMP

Careers

Comparison of the 2020 central farm laws with the amendments proposed by states

Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act: Review of implementation

Recent Posts