TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>MSP abolition on paddy and farm fire control measures discussed with technology solutions for detection</h1> <h3>M.C. MEHTA Versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.</h3> SC addressed abolition of MSP on paddy and farm fire control measures. Court noted suggestions regarding technology utilization for detecting exact farm ... Abolition of MSP forthwith on paddy - HELD THAT:- There are certain suggestions being made in the course of hearing and the concerned authorities will look to it. Among the suggestions which we can easily flag is that with technology available now information is forthcoming to be utilized to control the farm fire where the exact location of farm fire can be immediately detected. How to proceed with it and what measures are to be taken are administrative in character and the function of the Court is to make sure that the administrators perform the task assigned to them. The Chairman, DPCC may not remain present in the court as the order has been complied with. List on 21.11.2023. Issues Presented and Considered:1. Whether steps prescribed by the Cabinet Secretary for controlling farm fires should be implemented by all stakeholders.2. Whether the use of technology to detect farm fires and the promotion of crop diversification are viable solutions to the issue.3. Whether the Minimum Support Price (MSP) for paddy should be abolished immediately.Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:Issue 1:- Relevant legal framework and precedents: The Court considered the steps prescribed by the Cabinet Secretary and the responsibilities of all stakeholders in controlling farm fires.- Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court emphasized the importance of implementing the prescribed steps promptly and using a carrot and stick policy to address the issue effectively.- Key evidence and findings: The Court noted that efforts were being made to bring farm fires under control and acknowledged that the problem was not limited to Punjab.- Application of law to facts: The Court highlighted the need for all stakeholders to cooperate and take necessary actions to address the issue.- Treatment of competing arguments: There were no competing arguments mentioned in the judgment.- Conclusions: The Court directed all stakeholders to proceed with the prescribed steps to control farm fires and emphasized the importance of collective efforts in addressing the issue.Issue 2:- Relevant legal framework and precedents: The Court discussed the use of technology to detect farm fires and the promotion of crop diversification as long-term measures.- Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court highlighted the significance of utilizing technology for immediate detection of farm fires and stressed the importance of crop diversification to reduce stubble burning.- Key evidence and findings: The Court considered suggestions made during the hearing regarding the use of technology and crop diversification.- Application of law to facts: The Court underscored the administrative nature of implementing these measures and the role of the Court in ensuring that administrators fulfill their duties.- Treatment of competing arguments: No competing arguments were mentioned in the judgment.- Conclusions: The Court emphasized the need for long-term measures such as crop diversification and the use of technology to address the issue of farm fires effectively.Issue 3:- Relevant legal framework and precedents: The Court discussed the submission regarding the abolition of the MSP for paddy.- Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court clarified that the submission was not to abolish the MSP for paddy immediately but to encourage crop diversification.- Key evidence and findings: The Court referred to discussions on crop diversification and the importance of encouraging alternative varieties of crops.- Application of law to facts: The Court clarified the intention behind the submission regarding the MSP for paddy.- Treatment of competing arguments: No competing arguments were mentioned in the judgment.- Conclusions: The Court clarified that the submission was aimed at promoting crop diversification and not abolishing the MSP for paddy, emphasizing the need for phased crop diversification.Significant Holdings:- The Court directed all stakeholders to implement the prescribed steps for controlling farm fires promptly.- The Court emphasized the importance of using technology for immediate detection of farm fires and promoting crop diversification as long-term measures.- The Court clarified that the submission regarding the MSP for paddy was to encourage crop diversification and not to abolish the MSP immediately.End of Document.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
